Religion and Politics: Blurring the Line

Where is the line drawn between politics and religion? The trend is showing that the line is becoming blurrier and blurrier. The evangelical Christians were swing vote in the last election. The Republican Party is now identified as the religious party. The Democrats are trying to shift their image so they seem more in touch with God. The Democrats are now realizing what the Republicans are realizing. The people of the U.S. are connecting politics to the values they learn at church. In the opinion of this scholar, the blurry line between religion and politics needs to be sharper. The increasing role of religion in politics lately is dangerous to the democratic process and this trend needs to be halted.

There are several groups who have taken polls in recent to document this resurgence of religion at the polls. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press recently did a poll that dealt with the issue of politics and how religion should play apart. When asked if churches should express views on politics, 51% among all registered voters felt like they should. The baby boomers were the highest believers in this among all age groups with 58% for and 38% against. When asked if clergymen should discuss politics from the pulpit, 35% of registered voters said yes.

This statistic alone isn't impressive, but to see that it is up 10% from the poll Gallup did in 1965 is alarming. Before I go on to stats about evangelical Christians let's define exactly what they are. This is defined by Dr. Leon Morris as a "gospel man, a gospel women." It is where "The gospel is at the center of his thinking and living." When the Pew Research Center asked about the favorableness of evangelical Christians, 63% of those polled in 2000 had a favorable opinion on them. This is up from the mere 41% in 1996. The last stat thrown out is the importance of a president to have strong religious beliefs. What exactly is meant by strong is not identified but a whopping 70% believe that their leader must have strong religious beliefs and ties to run our nation.

According to research done by Daniel J. Myers, David Sikkink, and Benjamin Radcliff of Notre Dame, religion has played a large role in the increase of social protest throughout the years. While not much research has been done on what religions have on a specific social cause, religion plays a role in how people form ideas about the world. The " collectively held beliefs and values" of people are shaped by what a person is exposed to during there lifetime. This means a strong background in religion or a strong background in not acknowledging religion. This is how political arguments involving religion like abortion are fought, with groups from both sides. These scholars also argue that this social movement activity is "not discontinuous with conventional political activity." These same scholars argue that this religious political activism is just as rational as voting, lobbying, or contributing to a candidate's campaign. The only difference is the amount of dedication. These religious activists are more dedicated in trying to push the agenda of their church than the common man or women are.

In Religion and Politics in the United States: An Overview by Kenneth W. Thompson, he begins identifying the problem with bringing together religion and politics. "Politics is not allegiance to a single moral principle but the ability to coordinate and adjust multiple principles such as order and freedom, justice and equality, or peace and national security." Politics has to juggle the beliefs and different viewpoints of so many while religion has its own group which it has to answer to. Religion can have these single moral judgments on things because religious groups don't have to answer to anybody but God and their worshippers. Thompson also makes the argument that by bringing religion into political decision, people are belittling faith. "To place every person's faith in a single doctrinal straitjacket is to trivialize that faith." Within this essay, Thompson discusses the Moral Majority and instances where they have reshaped the political landscape. Jerry Falwell is the quintessential leader for the Moral Majority. The fundamentalist look to this man to lead them. Jerry Falwell has always tried to " turn back moral degeneracy. According to claims made by Falwell, he registered 8.5 millions new voters since 1978. In the 1984 election, Falwell and his group focused on the reelection of Ronald Reagan who they called an "instrument of God" and Jesse Helms who was a "national treasure." He worked on a daily with over 2,400 churches and pastors in the state of North Carolina to get Jesse Helms elected.

Dr. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries is a Presbyterian minister who heard by millions through his radio and television programs. Dr. Kennedy strongly believes that all Christians should push for a strong Christian agenda in government. The nation that we live in today was founded by Christians and there beliefs had to have spilled over into the constitution of the United States. A question that is constantly asked in courts and in discussion is what would the founders of this nation want. Kennedy feels like they would have definitely push for a Christian agenda and Kennedy is on a mission to gather as many Christians as possible so his message for this agenda is heard. " Therefore, the whole biblical concept concerning the nature of man, upon which concept our Constitution was founded, is being eroded." He is concerned along with many others that the country is going downhill and that its foundation, the Constitution, is eroding because of the moral decline. He pushed hard for the reelection of push in 2004 and he got a lot of evangelical Christians out there to vote. He feels that to not use some moral and religious judgment is absurd in all cases. "I am personally opposed to the wave of muggings sweeping the country today, but I have no right to impose my morality on others." This biting sarcasm of politicians, especially democrats, presents a good argument for political figures using what morals and values a politician learned growing up. Kennedy himself is one of the political activists. He has made several trips to Capitol Hill, has organized several trips to the polls for evangelical Christians, and presses his views on numerous radio, television, and books.

According to a Christian Science Monitor poll, 82% of those polled feel that religious organizations should not endorse any party or candidate. The reasoning was because "Getting involved in political fights can cause religious groups to lose sight of their missions". The other 18% said yes because "The faithful have a right to see their values represented by their public servants. " This web page is most commonly viewed by those of faith and as can be seen they do not like it when a church or religious group support an elected officials candidacy. It does not help people figure out what they really want in office because it distorts the facts. If a persons church supports a certain candidate that person will feel like they have to vote for that candidate even if they feel the other would make a better public servant. They feel like if they don't vote for the supported candidate then they are taking a shot at the church and people just don't want to do that. Another thing talked about in the article was politicians being refused communion because of their stance on abortion. A church is supposed to be like a family. They are not supposed to ostracize a certain member just because they see something differently. A church that does this is more like a militia than a sanctuary for the faithful. They threaten and take away things from those who don't follow their doctrine completely.

A common belief held by those who support a closer bond between religion and politics is that this nation was founded with the Christians principles in mind. They argue that because this is what the founding fathers used to form this country that politicians should keep that in mind. The trouble with this is that the founding fathers just wanted to lay down groundwork for the future. They didn't expect us to think or do exactly like them and they had to anticipate change. The landscape of American is so much different than that of the days of the founding fathers. Even the religion today is a lot different. People just are not as strong into religion as they once were in America. It also cannot be expected that America shapes the laws after one religion when there is a plethora of other religions. Politicians have more than just one religion in there given area that they are representing. It is true that a majority of the country is Christian but expecting to shut out the voices of all the minorities who might take issue is wrong.

This scholar has a huge problem with this kind of thing happened. Politics and religion have to be two separate entities. It has to be like oil and water. Religion should be used to satisfy the spiritual need of the people and politics should be used to ensure peace and order. Politics allows people to exercise their faith. People have lost focus on why this country was founded. It wasn't so one religious group could flex their muscle in the political system and get their beliefs turned into law. It was meant to give everyone the freedoms that a free person should have including freedom of religion. This also means freedom from religion. When religion and politics mix there is a violation of our rights as citizens.

At this moment, the moral majority of about 20 years ago during the Reagan presidency has returned and the country is connecting the dots between their religion and politics. The actual attendance at church has not changed dramatically in the recent times according to the same Pew Research Center poll that was discussed earlier. The difference is that politicians, mostly Republicans, have played the so-called "religious card" as have identified themselves as the religious party. What won president George W. Bush the last election was the evangelical Christians and the other church goers who saw president Bush and the Republican party as the group that could best infiltrate the governmental system and make Christian changes to the country. The Republicans are not the only ones who are trying to play this religious card to just get more votes. The Democrats are in the process of developing themselves as the real religious party. They have started to use Bible verses in speeches and throwing in words and phrases like "our Lord" and "God" into their jargon so they seem like they are concerned about religion. Both parties play off peoples religious beliefs to receive votes and this is wrong. It isn't wrong that they say they want to uphold the people will and values because that is why people vote. What is wrong is that they are attacking each other over who is more religious. This results in a trivialization of religion. Both parties can uphold the beliefs and views of American and people should look at the facts before they blindly support a candidate just because they say they are a religious man.

A lot of issues are looked at as religious issues that should not be. Let's take welfare for example. Democrats would tell you that their stance on welfare is shaped because of some sort of religious beliefs. This is a lie. Their stance on welfare is a stance they take because their whole party has been identified for years as one that institutes more governmental programs. They have done this because welfare was needed during the Great Depression to get people back on their feet. This is an economic issue and it stems directly from an economic crisis so how can they argue that this has anything to do with religion? They do this so it sounds like they care about religion a lot. They do this to trick the simple minded people into believing they are moral and right. The real question that should be asked is whether the people on welfare have made an attempt to work and provide for themselves economically. Helping those out in need is not strictly something people of faith do. It is not like the Republicans are refusing to help poor people or that they care any less. It is just that economically they think helping the poor can be done differently and more efficiently.

Moral issues can not simply be solved with a law. A moral issue is complex and asks many different questions. A law is straightforward and answers a few simple questions. Trying to establish morals in something as simple as a law trivializes the issue. Unlike a lot of other laws, there is not clear cut solution. Theses moral issues have about the same amount of people on each side of the issue that are adamant about their side. Social commentary and debate doesn't always have to result in law. The goal of this should be to try to change people view on these things and see it there way. It should not be to form laws and amendments that force the will of a slight majority onto a minority. Why can't we just agree to disagree and just practice what we believe? The people who push their religious agenda on everybody else are just selfish and insecure. There insecurity comes in not knowing if what they believe is what everybody else is. They need to be reassured that there is other people that think and do exactly like them.

The two major issues right now are abortion and gay marriage. Both of these are moral issues and there are people who want both of these banned. It can be debated until eternity whether each of these is right and whether or not a ban of these things would put an end to abortion or homosexuality. The question here is whether the ones governing this country have the right to decide what is right and wrong. The contention of this scholar is that it is not. Every individual should have their own opinion on these issues but who's to say who is right and who is wrong. There are so many different religions and ideologies that it is unfair for one to rain supreme over everybody else's. The solution is see on religious/political issues is this: if you don't believe in these things than don't do them. If a person feels abortion is wrong than don't have an abortion. It has to be kept in mind that not everybody believes that abortion is murder. It is something between God and that person. To achieve eternal life a person does not have to stop what they believe is sinful behavior. All they have to do is what they believe is right and if they think somebody is wrong than let them know. The purpose of laws is to protect people from being threatened or hurt physically or mentally or to promote the well-being of the people. What does a ban on abortion or gay marriage accomplish? It causes people to seek out dangerous ways to not have a child and tells a group of people from letting other know that they love each other. While this scholar will likely never have to make a decision about abortion or ever have to worry about a same-sex marriage, I feel it is necessary to protect the right of others. These types of bans will only stop a pursuit of happiness.

I think another solution that would satisfy those who are tired of the close ties between religion and politics is giving more power to the individual states. Each state would be able to decide issues on moral judgment, such as homosexual marriage and abortion, as they see fit. The U.S. is diverse in morality. Morality is an issue usually deeply rooted in religious background and different areas have different ways of interpreting holy text and scripture. They value different things in different areas. There is nothing wrong with this and the national government shouldn't try to suppress the will of the people. For example, it would be more than likely that a state like Texas would ban abortion and gay marriage while a state like California would allow both or put restrictions on them. The people of Texas would be happy because their conservative ideology is upheld in their area and California liberal ideology would be upheld in that state. If a person strongly objected with their states ruling on an issue they could move to another part of the U.S. where their beliefs could be upheld. The federal government should not have a role in moral issues. That may have been fine a few hundred years ago when everyone in the United States was less diverse. Since the Constitution was written, this country has had millions of people from all kinds of different locations with all kinds of different ideas move to the United States. When these people moved here, they moved to different locations and certain areas have a way of looking at things. People in the Midwest have another way of looking at something than people in the South. People from the west side of the country think differently than those in a more centralized location. It has to be understood that an issue like abortion is never going to be decided decisively one way or the other on a national level. The best hope is that a small group like a state can figure out what their people want and accommodate for them.

The issue of religion in politics is an issue that will always come up. Religion will always have something to do with politics and their will always be politics in religion. The best thing we can do is pick and choose what things to associate each with and try and try to limit the connection between the two is much as possible. If the line between the two becomes any blurrier, than both will weaken. As Americans, we need to try to find a middle ground where we can practice our faith, uphold our values, and protect the freedoms our Constitution has given us.