When Religion Really Bugs Me in Politics

Two things I need to make clear up front. The first is, I am a devout Catholic and a fervent "Merry Christmaser". The second is, I work in politics and have for most of my adult life, and I can tell you there is nothing holy about it.

American elective politics has degraded significantly with the huge rise in corporate campaign donations. You have to tie the first to the second. It isn't just media covereage, etc. that has caused politicians to grovel, lie and betray the electorate over and over again. After all, Kennedy looked great on TV against Nixon, but he didn't dump his values at the White House door for the sake of all the paybacks he had to give in office. As a President he made some of the most difficult decisions our country faced in the Cold War. He weighed decisions morally, certainly, because he had the weight of the country on his shoulders, but he didn't go ask Bishop Sheen what he should do every minute. Ditto to President Ronald Reagan. He clearly espoused his agenda, point of view and political view for the country. What Kennedy set in motion during October of 1961 and the Cuban missile crisis, Reagan polished with policies that led to the peaceful closing of the so-called iron curtain. I don't have to agree with every policy of either of these presidents or with either of their religious views to understand that each put the Constitution of the United States first. And I don't mean to diminish the acocmplishments of Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford or Carter in the interim. My point is, from the Nixon-Kennedy debate on, politics in America took on a veneer. Appearance became in some ways as important as reality. More of the process became public, or at least more of the public process became visible to the average voter.

But somewhere along the line, and I really think the roots are in perceptions associated with the Reagan presidency, somebody decided it isn't the platforms of the Democratic or Republican parties that mattered any more - but it is how you spin them. Ronald Reagan was not a mouth piece for any religious interest or agenda. He was a true believer in what he viewed to be fundamental conservative politics - smaller government, strong defense, and a free market economy.
The one questionable legacy of his presidency is the changes in policy associated with the "Just Say No" edicts with regard to drug education. These were by no means meant to be precursors of abstinence-only sex education, but in some ways the simple mantra so often spoken by First Lady Nancy Reagan that America's youth should 'just say no' to drugs resonated with certain religious power brokers.

Mind you, Ronny and Nancy, may personally have been opposed to abortion, but neither was in any way a vocal advocate for either the criminalization of abortion in this country, or of the constitutional dismantling that would be required to make abortion illegal again. President Reagan's approach, as to all matters of social policy at odds with his view of the role of federal government, was to cut funding wherever possible. By this I don't mean to say President Reagan supported abortion rights. In fact, when it came to financial support of the federal government, he favored the least amount of support possible and according to the strictest reading of the limits of Roe v. Wade. What I mean is, his personal, religious views were separate from the reasoning behind the policies he implemented. He acted morally and constitutionally, not according to the Presbyterian General Aasembly (which officially left the matter of abortion to the individual). Do I think Ronald Reagan felt he was acting in his capacity of President of the United States in a way to foster his religious beliefs? No. I believe he felt he was fostering the basic principles of a constitutionally guided Republic. Authority was delegated to him as president and he operated with the good faith interests of the people of the United States at heart. Now, as a person, I think like any president, including President Kennedy, at the end of the day he had to make peace with his decisions. That he did personally and between himself and God.

It has troubled me greatly in recent years how the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been bastardized from their clear descriptive origins in American politics to mean something completely different. At its extreme the term 'conservative' connotes libertarianism - an almost complete delegation of social responsibilities and even fiscal imperatives from the federal governments to the states, and an expanse of individual rights. At its extreme the term 'liberal' connotes progressivism - a view that federal government is paternalistic and that while individual's enjoy significant civil 'rights', government also has certain social obligations. Funding for social welfare as a federalized program, for example, is counter to pure conservative views, and may be a cornerstone of liberal doctrine. However, both liberal and conservative doctrines favor expansive civil rights as provided by the constitution, including among these 'freedom of (or from) Religion, and that all rights under the law be conveyed equally to all citizens (this would necessarily include the constitutional right to access health care, and abortion). The differences have always arisen in what government should spend colective funds on and what government should organize and run versus co-exist with or condone. Also, both liberal and conservatives have adhered to the constitutional separation of Church and State. One's reading of the constitution, whether it be a laissez-faire or an authoritarian view, did not diminish basic conceptions that certain 'rights' existed.

Throughout American history Religion has played a peripheral role in formation of individual political ideaology of elected officials. For example, during the divisive era of slavery religious extremists such a John Brown and the abolitionists, felt their Christian faith held no quarter for the legal holding of a human being as slave to another. President Lincoln had similar religious views, but it was his reading of the constitution as well as his moral quandary over the damage slavery as an institution was doing to the country itself (and some would add, a pragmatic reading of the dying economics of the agrarian south versus the burgeoning economics of the industrialized north) that made him a vehement opponent to slavery in his role as President. Throughout the south both prior to and subsequent to the Civil War, many Christian churches took controversial pro-slavery stances. In short, there was no unanimity of Christian principle on the issue of slavery. Ironically, President Lincoln was reviled at numerous churches throughout the south during the Civil War, but he is often quoted and called upon by the progeny of those very condemning preachers and denominational leaders some hundred and thirty years later, as an example of a Religious leader bound to the 'Christian tradition' of American government.

In today's environment, Lincoln's view on slavery and his commitment to ending it as at odds with the constitutional imperative that all men are created equal and all are entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (the two latter of which are severely impeded by the process of enslavement, as upheld in numerous court cases of the era) would be touted as a 'liberal view'. It is a liberal reading of the constitution and also a basic encroachment of federal government onto state's rights, let alone into matters of 'private property rights'. More than that, though Lincoln was raised in a Baptist household (southern Baptist preachers were in many cases pro-slavery advocates at the time), he had no specific denominational affilation himself. His views and policies as President would have been at odds with all but the liberal, northern Christian denominations. Aligning himself with religious leaders was not the point. Keeping the country together and abolishing slavery, which was inconsistent with an enlightened Republic, was the point.

All of which brings me to my current and ongoing displeasure with Religious encroachment into American elective politics and even into actual policy making.
There was no religious basis for the Reagan era programs of "Just Say No". Of course, when programs implemented under this ideaology proved ineffective, federal funding for them was diminished. Successful programs were promoted in their stead - often broader programs that dealt with the root causes of drug use. Not so the abstinence-only policies of the current administration, which have their roots in so-called 'faith-based' initiatives. Upwards of fourteen states currently forego federal funding for abstinence only sex education in public schools because the programs are ineffective, and the numbers are growing. States seek to enect broader programs that include abstinence education as a part of the curriculum, but with the recent increase in teen pregnancies (right up to Nickolodeon darling and 16 year old Jamie Lynne Spears' recent pregnancy) and the huge increase in STDs among people under 21 in the US, states need to address an actual public health crisis in an effective manner. It is neither liberal nor conservative to address public health issues effectively. One's willingness as a public servant to reduce health risks and costs to the masses has infinitely more to do with the oath of office an elected official takes to uphold the constitution than it does with that official's religious beliefs or lack thereof. In fact, it is arguably immoral to allow people to continue to contract diseases and to continue to become pregnant (to later abort or in many cases to be unable to parent) when you have the means to minimize these dire health situations. Forewarned is forearmed. You cannot make choices for other people, but you can provide them with the best possible information to make the 'right' choices.

But, certain religious leaders think these are not matters of government, but of the Churches. Certain religious leaders have openly said they 'delivered' the 2000 and 2004 elections and deserve more power and say in government. I view that with as much disdain as I view the prospect of the Mafia saying it delivered certain precincts and allowed certain voting boxes to go missing while getting plenty of dead people onto the voting rolls - therefore, it deserves a broader say in government and government policies. Church leaders say they represent traditional values, conservative values. Ronald Reagan was largely silenced by 2000 due to his Alzheimer's disease, but on many occasions subsequent policies of the current administration and pushes by religious groups for public funding, etc. have been slapped back by Reagan biographers and even Reagan family members at being totally at odds with Reagan conservatism. Reagan's conservatism was a political conservatism. This new conservatism is a religious conservatism. Even if an individual shares these personal relgious views, one has to get outside oneself and see the Republic for what it is and understand the direction such a movement will take. There is no democracy in religion. In my Church the Pope doesn't send me a card every few months to get my take on what the College of Cardinals are contemplating by way of moral order, nor on what he is considering for an encyclical (which our faith believes to be the infallible word of God). In church I am a sheep following a shepherd. granted with the blessing of the primacy of conscience and the privilege of confession. In this country, in this democracy, I am an active participate or I give the lie to Republic. When I vote for someone and delegate my voice to that official I am only delegating my voice in matters of State, not Church.

So, it is very disconcerting, given my country's history, given this hard won division of Church and State (the entire basis of the formation of the country as not just colonies but a independent nation - set us free from the Church of England!), that Church keeps getting preached at my by politicians. To me it's fair to know a politican's religous affiliation, or lack of affiliation. It's fair to know how they believe personally on certain issues. But, at the height of campaign season, I don't want to see an add that tells me to have a Merry Christmas and infers that if this person is elected that term "Merry Christmas" will again become a part of the political mainstream. Campaign money intended to elect this person to office was spent on that add. It puts religion as a campaign issue front and center. I don't care what anyone says about a preacher having fervent beliefs, that ad was a calculated political move. Donor dollars come from both corporate Americna, which wants to preserve what it has, and religious power groups, wanting ot preserve religious power along with their beliefs. That little holiday greeting (sorry to be pc, but it IS the holiday season and Christmas is NOT the only holiday in December). Th ad addresses the undercurrent of division in this country right now, and heightens the sensitivities (and play upon the fears) of old school Christians who fear their way of life is changing. It was meant to say subliminally what a lot of people are whispering anyway. That Romney guy is a Mormon and they aren't really Christian, are they? That Obama guy, he could really be a Muslim or a Muslim sympathizer. Guiliani, Biden, etc. - they're Catholics and not very good ones. Papists. McCain, Thompson, they waffle around the PC issues and won't just say things as they should be when it comes to religion. And Clinton, give me a break. God does not intend a woman to lead this country. At the end ofthe day it was a shot across the bow at the threat to the natural order of the white Christian universe posed by either Obama or Clinton - because at the end of the day the Religous Right thinks Romey is unelectable in the Bible belt. So the ad speaks to that voting block and the larger naysayers who might cross party lines when faced with an untenable choice of a black man or a woman. It all comes down to Christmas. The birth of our Savior. You need someone who knows He was our Savior and who isn't afraid to say so out loud to the unholy masses here and abroad. You need someone who will silence the dissenters and put our agenda first. Christmas embodies all that is sacred in Christianity. The ad doesn't say 'elect me president', but it suggests a world in which you don't. Mr. Huckabee may have been fine with it based on his beliefs, but somewhere along the line string pullers were thinking bigger than that. And at this late date in American politics it's time we called that out into the daylight. It is an appeal on a fundamantal level for a fundamentalist world view right here at home.

That is no different than Said Qutb voicing his disdain for the way the Arab-Muslim world had changed after oil boomed and everyone became westernized and forming the Muslim Brotherhood to return 'is' society to the old ways of his view of traditional Islam. That is no different than the Muslim Brotherhood plotting the downfall of Anwar Sadat, toppling the 'liberal, westernized' penninsula from Egypt on out. America is not a fundamentalist Christian country. It is not a Jewish country. It is not a Muslim country. It is not an Atheist country. It is a secular nation. If we can't respect our Republic, our Democracy that promotes pluralism by its very nature, then we are headed in the same direction toward intolerance and fundamentalist religious rule that has caused such harm all over the world.

The greatest leaders this country has known, from its inception up to the current day, are those who were not swayed by their pastors or advisors or popular opinion in matter of state, but those who led with the interests of the Republic, the people, first. There is no religious litmus test for a good leader in a Democracy. Religious and denominational moral designations are all over the board. They do not fit into the confines of our government's constitution. They are neither liberal nor conservative, and among Christian religions they are often an odd mixture of both. As voters over centuries Christians in this country have never voted as a block. Each casts an individual vote. When we stop doing that, we cease to function as a democracy, and worse, as sheep we begin to follow the shepherd of state, not of Heaven.

Religion bugs me in politics because of how very dangerous it is. It makes me wonder what has changed so drastically between 1960, when candidate John F. Kennedy said he would honor the oath of office as leader, not lead according to the precepts of his Catholic faith - and 2007, when Mike Huckabee said prayer was working and God was helping him rise in the polls and he stood for Christmas - as ways of selling himself as the best candidate. Our adherence to the principles of democracy, our commitment to the Republic, has wavered. We are teetering on the brink of desiring Might to go along with our 'rightness' at the peril of the future of Democracy anywhere in the world. Just as communism teetered with the break up of the Soviet Empire, so will Democracy falter as America falters in its exercise of Democracy. My spiritual and religious beliefs are sacred to me, but my sense of responsibility to this world, to my fellow man dictates in large part my adherence to America's Republic form of government. Only in this country am I as free as I am today to worship, to practice, to live my faith and only in this country am I required also to respect the beliefs of my fellow citizens. That is a sacred privilege of democracy: the freedom to worship, the obligation to uphold the freedoms of others.

Now moreso than ever it is important that the American people force the political dialogue in this country back into politics and away from relligion. There is no Christian candidate, no Jewish candidate, no Muslim candidate - the one who must be chosen by those who believe in this manner. But, if we begin to designate along these lines, then that is exactly what we will get. And with such designations comes oppression of all those who do not share the specific values, rules and law of that religious view. I think it's fine for a candidate running for office to have his or her family around him in an ad, maybe a Christmas tree in the background, a menorah on the table, a prayer rug visible in the background, or maybe a picture of Madalyn Murray O'Hair on the wall behind them. That's fine, make clear your personal views, but in that ad tell us how you will uphold the constitution on the United States, and with it the integrity of this great nation. Show us your respect for pluralism and the rights of all citizens.