Sarah Palin's Religious Affiliation Should Not Be an Issue

In yet another round of president campaign 'issues' getting press attention so as to distract us from the real, vital issues this country is facing - Sarah Palin is being criticized by some in the press who say her prior affiliation with the Pentecostal Assembly of God means she may hold some extreme religious views. Thus far candidate Palin and candidate McCain are not addressing her current or prior church affiliations. On the other end, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says if John McCain shies away from the issues of Palin's faith and doesn't make it central to the campaign, he will "turn off social conservatives, evangelicals, orthodox Christians." (9/9/08 interview with CNN's John Roberts). Palin is currently a member of Wasilla Bible Church and has been for the last six years, and that church holds a number of beliefs that are fairly religiously conservative. But, in a plural democracy one would imagine that Separation of Church and State and the Freedom of Religion granted in the constitution would hold precedence - as Palin's faith life would guide her conscience but would not be the tool she relied upon in governing, especially after taking the Oath of office (of vice president, by the way - although both vice presidential candidates should also be scrutinized for the ability to serve as president). Mr. Perkins doesn't think so, and he thinks highlighting Palin's faith and talking about how it would impact her governing is something John McCain must do if he wants to win the election.

Really? We've certainly come a long way from the 1960 election, in which candidate John F. Kennedy's Catholicism was viewed as a negative and a potential detractor because it was a minority religion (in 1960 about 28% of Americans were Catholic and today just less than 25% are (adherents.com)), and a very strict christian faith, and 'mainstream Americans' had some concerns. One hundred eighty years of more or less comfortable WASP rule hung in the balance in the midst of the Cold War. Kennedy allayed these fears by stating his religion was his own but he would lead as an American and according to the oath of office, not according to the precepts of his faith. Such a clear indication of Kennedy's support of our existing plural democracy helped catapult him to a narrow victory over incumbent vice president Richard Nixon (a Quaker, 0.2% of the overall population). For the time being America was able to breathe easy as there are certain actions one's faith may demand of the individual that it is tyrannous under our constitution to impose upon the many, and President Kennedy had the confidence of a nation that as President he was an American first and foremost.

One could certainly argue that Kennedy's basic moral construct was formed in part through his religious faith and that he relied upon his faith for guidance when making tough decisions. Honestly, whenever I see the black and white photo of the President and his younger brother, the Attorney General, sitting across from each other in deep contemplation during the 13 days of the Cuban missile crisis, it does occur to me that foundations like the Just War Doctrine and Sanctity of Life may have informed their consciences and enlighened their thinking as they pondered possible outcomes of setting aside diplomacy and igniting a nuclear response. Of course, the Constitution forms a fairly reasoned body of thinking on ethics and rights as well, and as a President takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, it seems that perhaps President Kennedy was thinking about the implications of executive power under the constitution and what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness might look like for Americans should he take such action. For America (and likely for the world) in October 1963, the actions of President Kennedy kept the Cold War cold, not nuclear hot.

In even more recent history one can look at President Reagan (a Presbyterian, 2.8% of the population) to see where personal morality most likely informed a seminal decision of his presidency and one could certainly ascribe if one wanted that morality as having been informed at least in part by his religious beliefs,
In the waning days of the Cold War, in the twilight of the final, failed balkanization attempt by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, President Reagan took the high road. Rather than seizing upon opportunity for exercise of military might against a nation worn down by a prolonged, costly conflict, President Reagan famously implored Premier Gorbachev to "tear down your wall" in a June 1987 speech in West Berlin that could be heard on the eastern side. Far from a chest pounding cry of "we will bury you!" as uttered by Kruschev to Kennedy, it was a plea for redemption. Certainly a cynic could see much economic and other worldwide benefit of a bloodless end to simmering hostilities and socialism spread too thin, but two years later when the Berlin wall did indeed fall after the Soviet final retreat from Afghanistan the full impact of Reagan's diplomatic approach began to be felt. It was less a victory of capitalism over communism (capitalism always looks better in pictures anyway because we all have designer jeans and smart hairdos instead of long, sad faces and scarves) than a triumph of mutual spirit not to distrust, but to open arms to each other.

One had to remember also that Presidents Reagan and Kennedy could not guarantee the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of Soviet citizens, but had to have some basic trust (especially in the case of Kennedy where nuclear strikes were imminent), faith if you will, that their counterparts, Gorbachev and Kruschev ultimately had the best interests of the well-being of the Soviet people at heart. Clearly, Mr. Kruschev was willing to bury us, but it appears he had to be certain we would be willing to bury his people first, and that was something Mr. Kennedy was not willing to do. And Mr. Gorbachev had to see beyond the vast capitalistic machine to the person Mr. Reagan was and actually believe this leader's convictions were shared by the country he led.

I do wonder what sort of seminal moments of Palin's vice presidency or a potential presidency of hers Mr. Perkins feels will be informed by the basic moral construct that has been informed within Palin by her (Pentecostal or Bible Church) evangelical faith. And how does a faith shared by 1.8% (Pentecostal) or 0.02% (Bible) of Americans help sway such a large voting block of Americans? Oh, right, Perkins isn't talking about people of faith, he's talking about "socially conservative voters", the people who want to get back to the roots of our 'Christian Nation'. Though only a small percentage of Americans readily identify themselves as 'evangelical', nearly 76% of adult Americans do identify as Christian, and Mr. Perkins believes the majority of Christians vote as a socially conservative block who hearken to 'faith-based leadership' of the founding fathers.

I really struggle to find precedent for such thinking, either that the founding fathers had a faith-based approach to governance, or that their religious affiliations were reflective of majority denominations. Yes, George Washington was Episcopalian, the American version of the Church of England, and that faith probably represented the more liberal faith of a young country still fleeing the tyrannies of the Crown. Today Episcopalians represent 1.7% of Americans, but back in the 1780s they were nearly one third. And it's most likely Washington was swept into office based upon his military victories rather than upon his individual moral construct or religious affiliation. Of course, one couldn't get more liberal in religious affiliations than that of our second president, John Adams, and his son, the 6th president, John Quincy Adams. John Adams was raised a Congregationalist but became a Unitarian, as was his son throughout his life. Good grief, Imagine the furor over presidents with religious beliefs honoring the inherent dignity of all people, the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within congregations, and, gasp, justice, equity and compassion in human relations. Just 0.3% of Americans today are Unitarian and even in the Adams' day they were only about 5% of the (white) population. Even in the enlightened 20th century Americans elected one of those open-minded Unitarians as president, William Howard Taft, who sought 'dollar diplomacy' and economic justice in Latin America and instituted the corporate income tax - very egalitarian ideals. Though he would be only a one term president due to a schism with Teddy Roosevelt that split the Republican party, he was later appointed to and became chief justice of the Supreme Court, serving until shortly before his death in 1930. We've actually had four Unitarian presidents, but I don't count Millard Fillmore, since he was never elected by the people and got into office due to the untimely death of President Zachary Taylor. Besides, Fillmore is boring. No one's ever made a movie about him, and he's not on any coins. It is notable that Thomas Jefferson, second president, who was raised Episopalian, also held Unitarian beliefs though.

So, back to Sarah Palin and that issue with her Pentecostal (1.8% of the population) past and the so-called 'religious extreme views' sometimes voiced in her current Wasilla Bible Church (0.02%). Well, I often hear things said from the altar in my church by various speakers, priests, bishops, guest lecturers that if you thought they were the crux of our Catholic Faith would throw you for a loop. It's funny, but while the congregation often can feel constrained in church, there is a certain rhapsody that overcomes priests, ministers, parsons, pastors, etc. at times - a freedom they seem to feel nowhere else. I guess the reality that there are no former presidents who were Pentecostals or who belonged to a Bible Church (which wasn't even formed until 1982 and which exists exclusively on the west coast) isn't such a big deal to me. John McCain is a southern Baptist (19.4%), as were Warren G. Harding, Harry S. Truman, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Not a lot that group of people have in common - two big scandals (one involving teapots, one involving a blue dress), a one term presidency followed by a career as a world-wandering diplomat and sometime housebuilder, and, oh yeah, a fellow who took over the office of president after serving only 82 days as vice-president - and during WWII no less, and without any prior knowledge of "The Manhattan Project". Now, Truman, he did invoke religion in office, immediately in fact, by saying to the press after taking the oath of office, "Boys if you ever pray, pray for me now. I don't know if you fellas ever had a load of hay fall on you, but when they told me yesterday what happened, I felt like the moon, the stars and all the planets had fallen on me." Of course, one wouldn't ascribe such a universal sentiment simply to a Southern Baptist in that situation, any person in his right mind would have felt the weight of the world upon him. Barack Obama is a member of the Church of Christ (1.2%), an affiliation shared by Presidents Lyndon Johnson and James Garfield and that was the childhood religion of President Reagan before he joined the Presbyterian Church. Catholic Joe Biden is probably just grateful there WAS a President Kennedy, or he'd be in the same position as Sarah Palin, next in line to the presidency, potentially, and of a faith with which the office of the president has no experience.

Do I think John McCain should shy away from focusing on Sarah Palin's religious affiliation? Yes, of course. I think all four candidates should be focused on the issues that face this country and should tell us how they and their running mates are going to unify and strengthen this country, its economy, its educational system, its health care system, etc. Do I think such a focus on real issues will alienate certain voters? Not the ones who have brains and who care about their country and their fellow human beings. If all we wanted to hear from a candidate was how alike our religious views were we'd have a theocracy. And, frankly, prolonged discussion of so-called Christian values in presidential campaigns denigrates all non-Christian Americans (secular, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Baha'i, etc.) - 25% of our population, 25.3% with the Unitarians. If you count the Catholics (single largest denomination) and the Mormons (1.6%) more than 52% of America is immediately cast aside.

Sarah Palin is free in this country to believe as she believes, to worship according to her beliefs. So are John McCain, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. When two of them step forward to take the oath of office as President and Vice President, they will not be swearing to uphold the tenets of their religous faith - but to uphold and defend the constitution. I want to know if that is what each of them really has in mind. I want to know what they will do about the economy (healthcare and education are huge in this issue), energy, transportation, foreign policy, reducing the size of the federal deficit. I don't care if they are Assemblies of God or Atheists because real moral strength comes in putting yourself and your beliefs second and the well-being of your countrymen first.

When Kennedy agonized during the 13 day stand off over the Cuban missiles, when Reagan saw a weakened Soviet army, a devastated Soviet economy - did they wonder what social conservatives in this country would want for the likes of atheistic Soviet Communists and take their best shot? No. Kennedy didn't make the presidential decisions he did because he was a Catholic and Reagan didn't make his decisions because he was a Presbyterian - they made those decisions because they were presidential, because of who each man was as a leader. Whether it was 'Morning in America" or the "New Frontier", they delivered on their promises and they withstood trials of conscience and were able to act in the interest of the people of this country, and frankly in those two situations, of the whole world. If Sarah Palin's faith is made an issue by McCain and Palin, then they do not deserve to be elected as they would be putting personal beliefs above the health of our democracy.