Article VI Blog

« The Dance Of Religion and Politics . . . | There Is A Double Standard . . . »

If You Are Interested In Religion and Politics . . .

Posted by: John Schroeder at 06:33 am, March 3rd 2008 &mdash 3 Comments »

. . . You need to be reading this stuff:

People Who Don’t Get It

McCain’s use of surrogates to take religious shots continues. (Who can forget his mother and her cracks about the SLC Olympics?) Ann Althouse has uncovered some anti-Catholic rants by recent “Evangelical” McCain endorser John Hagee. McCain needs religious voters if he is going going to stand a chance come fall, so I have to think that is why he jumped at the opportunity Hagee presented him, but I think he did so without sufficient research. Hagee is a lunatic-fringy Christian, that I would hesitate to call “evangelical.” McCain needs to figure out the religious demographic and he needs to do it quickly or we are looking at a disaster come November, as is evidenced by his Friday attempts to back away from the Hagee mess, reported in the Examiner and by Jonathon Martin. From Martin:

“They are supporting my candidacy,” McCain said, “I am not endorsing some of their positions.”

But by touting Hagee’s support, McCain invited scrutiny and put himself in a more difficult position to portray the endorsement as that of somebody who just happened to weigh in on the race.

Which is why McCain’s campaign this afternoon released a statement in the senator’s name distancing him from Hagee’s statements. Noting Hagee’s support, McCain said that “in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not.”

Let me translate that, “I desperately need religious voters if I am going to stand a chance this fall and this numb skull is all I’ve got at the moment.” OK, John, we’re not in love with you, but you are the hand we have been dealt - here’s a tip.: You’re not a religion guy; play to your strengths. I think it was Mark Twain who said “Better to keep quiet and have people think you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.” If I did not already know you did not really get the religion thing - I would now.

Elsewhere, Matthew Dowd has his blinders on in stating that “Race, Religion, Gender Didn’t Matter” (HT: a reader) Not hardly - they matter a lot, but just not in quite a formulaic a fashion as we would like. Dowd is looking at the Democratic side of things mostly (his very brief analysis of the Republican side completely ignores Huckabee - rendering it pointless and eminently ignorable) and opining, essentially, that in a race between a black and a woman, it could not. And yet, the Religion News Service writes about religion and Obama.

In point of fact, religion and the civil rights movement, and its political blossoming, have been so deeply intertwined that the separation of church and state in black political life is very hard to find. This has resulted in more of a secularization of black churches than undo religious influence in governance, and thus it has largely gone under the radar - but it is undoubtedly a huge factor in what is happening on the Democratic side. Different labels, but they are still labels. And while we are on the subject, Religion and Ethics Newsweekly discussed Obama and religion. I am not sure America at large is ready for what it looks like inside the black church. This could get interesting.

But out of Sacramento comes the king of the “don’t get it” stories:

God is disgusted with California legislators – at least some of them, according to an evangelical chaplain who ruffled feathers this week in the same Capitol where he leads Bible studies for lawmakers.

Ralph Drollinger, who played basketball at UCLA in the 1970s and now heads Capitol Ministries, criticized lawmakers who participate in a separate fellowship group that embraces people of all faiths without insisting that they accept Jesus Christ as Messiah.

“Although they are pleasant men in their personal demeanor, their group is more than disgusting to our Lord and Savior,” Drollinger wrote on the Capitol Ministries’ Web site.

‘Nuff Said.

Lowell: Glad to see Mr. Drollinger knows exactly what Jesus thinks about such matters.

Good For A Chuckle…

Some blogger identifies the religious “highlights” of the campaign to date. My message to religious voters everywhere, “We do look a bit foolish when it is boiled down this way. ” Of course, the coveted #1 slot is reserved for our friend Mike Huckabee.

Which, not remarkably, brings me to Jesse Jackson. Check him out on Chris Matthews after last week’s Dem debate. When Chris Matthews backs you into a rhetorical corner, you’re in deep trouble. Now, rerun the clip in your mind and substitute Huck for Jesse. Doesn’t take much in the way of imagination - does it?

Wisecrack Of The Day…

Do you think that if Mike Huckabee were running in Japan he would become Shinto?

About Those Mormons…

Josh Romney, Mitt’s son, was considering a congressional run, and says “The Question” mattered in his dad’s capaign - laying much of the blame squarely on Huck. Yet, Josh admires Huck’s political acumen. Yeah, well, Bill Clinton is a very good politician too . . .

Meanwhile in Mesa, AZ. Are Mormons engaged in identity politics? Shame on them, just like we Evangelicals if they are.

And yet, the CJCLDS is growing, and growing. OK, no secret, I think Mormon theology is wrong, but if their church is growing and ours is not - there has got to be more to this picture than just theology. Something to think about.

This is an important lesson often forgotten in the preceding months:

I leave, knowing what I’ve always known. True believers can be civil to each other, they can even join hands. But they can never join hearts. That’s just a pipe dream of people who don’t know true believers.

Wringing your hands over being accepted by other religions is a waste of a good pair of hands. Better to use them to hold to your ideals. Let the Founder sort it all out.

Lowell notes: I commend the entire article to everyone.

Someone Who Absolutely Got It…

That would of course be William F. Buckley, Jr. Our prayers for his family and loved ones at his passing.

Richard John Neuhaus looks at a book on the religion clause of the Bill of Rights and concludes this fascinating review and discussion with a personal tribute to Buckley. It seems a fitting place.

And thanks to the FRC blog for linking to a Christianity Today interview with WFB from 1995. Buckley’s words are, as could be expected, wise and insightful. He says things that deeply need to be heard today. It is all quotable, so we will just encourage you to read the whole thing. Maybe a couple of times.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 3 Comments » | Print this post | Email This Post

Recently:

3 Responses to “If You Are Interested In Religion and Politics . . .”

University Update - UCLA - If You Are Interested In Religion and Politics . . . on 03 Mar 2008 at 8:45 am #

[…] State University If You Are Interested In Religion and Politics . . . » This Summary is from an article posted at Article VI Blog on Monday, March 03, 2008 This […]
4thnephite on 04 Mar 2008 at 5:27 am #

Let us understand that all of us wishes a closer relationship to our Heavenly Father, some of us take different roads that are filled with many pot holes. Although many of us wish to relinquish our birthright to those who do have questionable thinking. Judge not lest ye be judged apparently means nothing to those traveling those bumpy roads. I find way too many people wish to make their fellow man in their image and not the Lords. A very flaw way of thinking.
Take the good as far as you can, enhance it and discard the nonsense.
We all have had very dark moments in our lives, and all of us have turned to the one that has given us life, I know John McCain is no different during his trials and tribulations.
Take into account how many times Hillary evoked the word of God in her speeches, so I must add she too must be going through her dark times.
coltakashi on 04 Mar 2008 at 12:12 pm #

The article about the Mesa, AZ, election said: “Campaign signs for Walters and Smith clutter the grounds surrounding the prominent Mesa Arizona Temple at South LeSueur and Main Street.
But Griswold said that when he posted a red, white and blue banner near the temple about a month ago, he was asked by a property owner to remove it.” This is total BS. The LDS Church does NOT allow political signs on its property, but the story was written to give precisely that impression. This reveals the reporter’s prejudice.

The fact that the OWNER of property told a candidate to get his sign off the OWNER’s land is an exercise of private property rights, as well as the OWNER’s free speech rights, which that candidate apparently does not believe in.

The notion that a 10% LDS population somehow controls elections is ludicrous. Apparently the rest of the voters in Mesa are lunkheads. Furthermore, while the reporter tried to make the fact that there are two LDS candidates competing sound ominous, it is clear that any kind of Mormon political conspiracy would make sure that only one Mormon was running so the Mormon vote would not be split. The fact that LDS candidates are competing against each other demonstrates that just being Mormon does not guarantee you are going to win an election.

Then there is the point that, despite this humongous Mormon vote (10%?), Mesa has NOT had an actively practicing LDS mayor for a couple of decades. How did the Mormon political machine mess that up?

If the minority of Mormon voters is also the part of the electorate in Mesa that is votes most consistently, and that is therefore more civic minded, it should be no surprise that at least one of the candidates is LDS. Based on the lack of turnout form the other 90% of Mesa citizens, the 2 Mormons to 1 non-Mormon ratio of candidates resembles the participation of voters in elections. Why should that be surprising?

The fact is that Mormons in Arizona and every other state vote for non-Mormon candidates all the time. They even vote for candidates who are not very dedicated Mormons (Cal Rampton, a hard-drinking guy, was elected governor of Utah three times in the 1960s and 70s). I imagine some of them even voted for John McCain!

As far as being comfortable voting for a candidate because you know his or her religious beliefs–where those particular beliefs make a difference in public policy that affects you, they are at least a consideration. After all, Obama claims to take his support for homosexual marriage from Jesus, and rejects Paul as “obscure.” Knowing his religious viewpoint on this issue tells us a lot about what kind of office-holder he would be. In Salt Lake City, the Democrat-dominated Mayor and city council have supported a new ordinance to establish a “domestic partners” registry. So even at the mayoral level, issues of morality and how one views the Bible are relevant to public policy decisions. If the Non-Mormon candidate wants to attract support from voters concerned with that issue, he can simply affirm that he supports traditional marriage, and neutralize the advantage of the Mormon candidates on that issue. Indeed, if a Mormon candidate departs from the standard Mormon viewpoint, there is no reason the non-Mormon candidate could not bring that out in debates and advertising (if it is true). The point is that we should not stop the inquiry at voting for or against someone on the basis of his or her religious affiliation, but rather to address those issues where religious beliefs do affect views on public policy. To say “I would vote for Obama over Romney because Obama is Christian and Romney is Mormon” is irrational. The view of Romney on gay marriage is directly opposed to the view of Obama, because Romney supports the traditional Christian and Biblical view, while Obama does not. To vote on the baiss of affiliation alone, without real examination of how the candidate understands his religion applying to public policy, is naive, not only about politicas, but also about the complex matter of religious belief.

Homosexual marriage is not an issue just for Mormons. I frankly cannot think of a potential public policy issue that would be of interest only to Mormons, other than some specific policy that discriminated against Mormons (e.g. denial of zoning permission to build an LDS meetinghouse).

Charles Colson just put out a Breakfront column about how teenagers who believe in predestination do not take the effort to make moral choices. He says “Christianity teaches moral responsibility”. But that is surely oversimplified. The essence of some versions of Protestantism is precisely that humans lack free will, and that whether a man is saved or not has nothing to do with his own choice, but God’s. To suppose that every “Christian” candidate will strongly support moral responsibility ignores the basic facts of the variety of Christian sects and doctrines.

If a Muslim were running for president, a legitimate question would be what his religion tells him about the Islamist campaign of bin Laden. Besides those who actively support bin Laden’s program, there are many Muslims in America who have failed to make clear that they actually oppose it. A Muslim who can articulate a strong commitment to oppose Islamofascism, and why other Muslims should join him, could be a potent leader in defense of America, one that would have tremendous moral leadership in the Missle East and the Islamic world. If he had also served in the US military in the fight against terrorism, he would have unstoppable credibility. He would be a figure like Eisenhower (”iron cutter”) leading the fight to defeat the Nazi government of his ancestral German homeland. But one whose first resort is to think of wishy washy justifications for terrorist violence does not deserve our vote for president. So of course religion is a starting point for questions. It just should not be the end point.