America's Twisted Marriage of Religion and Politics

Barack Obama's church-related quandary is just the latest example of American politicians' perilous dance with religion. In a presidential campaign infused like never before with the candidates' efforts to sell their religious beliefs as best-fitting an illusory mainstream, Obama hasn't quite pulled it off, although he is in a far better position after his historic speech in Philadelphia.

Obama's experience should provide another strong indictment of the perverted use of religion in American politics, but the focus has been much narrower, trained on this one pastor and this one church. This is a great shame, although it's hard to deny that Obama should have seen this coming. It's also hard not to fault Obama's need for a religious advisory committee advising his campaign, and for providing a political role to Wright (most of the other campaigns, including Clinton's have gone the same route.) What is wrong with just going to church and not talking about it? Or just not going to church?

Obama is hardly alone in his embrace of the unseemly mix of politics and spirituality. Religion as a political marketing tool is nothing new, but this year's campaign is notable if only because the three remaining candidates were not previously known for being happy Christian warriors (as opposed to, say, George W. Bush).

In Obama's case, his initial clumsiness notwithstanding, it is clearly the addition of race to an already combustible mix that his detractors have cunningly latched on. How else can one explain that John McCain's recent endorsement by a virulently anti-Catholic televangelist has gone basically unchallenged, with the GOP candidate unmoved by calls to rebuke John Magee. Hopefully, this comfortable bigotry exhibited by the Episcopalian McCain won't play too well in, say, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio in November (then again, with Obama having been tarred by the Clinton campaign as a hater of Geraldine Ferraro and by extension of all older white Catholic women, Catholic voters in those states may have a tough time picking this fall).

Yet there are worse religious extremists in the GOP than McCain, probably half of the Republican members of congress and governors, including presidential runner-up Mike Huckabee, whose campaign was centered on a breathtakingly stupid literal interpretation of the Bible. This didn't stop the supposedly secular media from a lengthy infatuation with the former Baptist preacher. Essentially ignored were Huckabee's hateful views on a range of issues, from the quarantine of people with AIDS as recently as the 1990s, to equating abortion with slavery. Much more was made of Huckabee's new-style Christianity calling for compassion for "the weak." That is until until "the weak," undocumented immigrants for instance, got between Huckabee and a suddenly attainable White House. Huckabee did apologize, though, for calling Mormonism a devil cult, but of course the harm was done to the Mormon in the race, Mitt Romney.

Romney himself tried to pull the old "as long as we all believe in one God, it's all good" routine, much in vogue with politicians of minority religious beliefs (Joe Lieberman came up with his own version in 2000, tempered by upsettingly self-deprecating humor meant to demystify his Orthodox Judaism to vaguely anti-Semitic voters). But Christian conservatives never quite warmed up to Romney and his Mormonism, dooming his candidacy. It's not unfathomable that a number of voters in 2000 rejected Lieberman's Judaism.

The Anglo-Saxon religious hypocrisy that pervades American politics allows for the most dreadful private behavior, as long as the candidate, when caught, is suitably contrite, seeks "spiritual guidance" and goes to church. A lot.

This is how we ended up in this campaign with a group of holier-than-thou Republican presidential candidates married a total of nine times among the top five (including one-timers Romney and Huckabee). A religious highlight of the campaign was Pat Robertson's endorsement of thrice-married born-again Catholic Rudy Giuliani, he who conducted a lengthy affair with his current wife while still married to Donna Hanover, the mother of his children, who learned of his planned divorce live on local TV.

This is also how we witness a former president, Bill Clinton, in an open marriage to a possible future president, with his wife's increasingly publicized Methodist faith seemingly not interfering much with their marital arrangement. No one has clutched a bible tighter and ambled into a church with as much purpose as Bill did in the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky disaster. From his Baptist religion's perspective, of course, he compounded his awful sin of adultery with a lie; his wife, we think, only lied about it, but that is also a sin in her Methodist faith. What saved the day for the Clintons, though, in addition to their reinvigorated Christian zeal, is that Bill signed the Defense of Marriage Act which bans the Federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, right around the time of the Lewinsky and other Clinton sex scandals. This shameful act was surely seen by the Clintons as indispensable to the public defense of their own marriage (and the White House) and is just one of the many betrayals of the couple's core supporters (why their current backers don't see this is a mystery, and a story for another day).

Including Clinton, nearly all the other candidates in this year's presidential race have opposed same-sex marriage, mostly based on their religious beliefs, as John Edwards made clear. In general, gay sex remains far more taboo than its straight version: Bill Clinton got away (gets away?) with sleeping with female interns and assorted subalterns, but Rep. Mark Foley was hunted out of Washington for trying to sleep with male pages. Unless they're Eliot Spitzer (felled by his own version of the Crusades), male politicians can also comfortably get away with sex with female prostitutes: John Vitter, a lunatic Bible-thumping Senator from Louisiana remains in office to this day, not least because of his appropriately Christian response to being caught (multiple mentions of God and forgiveness; little detail about the actual act to be forgiven). Ethics and laws don't matter much in American government if you can make a religious enough statement of contrition.

For 25 years, many in the Republican Party have hoped to install a theocratic government and have succeeded in incremental ways, with Bush as their most recent standard-bearer. The Democratic Party, fearful as always, has gone along with the merging of politics and religion, not wanting to be branded the party of the atheists (in the same way half the Democratic Senators, including Clinton, voted for the Iraq war so they wouldn't be called the party of the pacifists). One recent and sad example of Democrats' attempt at blunting such accusations is the religious caucus in the upcoming Denver convention. This, however, is sure to backfire, as the party is basically saying that you can't be Latino and/or African-American and/or religious: all three caucuses are held at the same time (as are others.) Maybe it's just that the Democratic National Committee wants to avoid fiery sermons by Jeremiah Wright-style black preachers.

That the United States is a religious country in which 62% believe in the devil, far more than believe in evolution, is one thing. But why drag out religion at every political opportunity, when no ostensibly spiritual politician lives remotely in accordance with his or her publicly stated beliefs? In fact, it's a pretty sure bet that, as they have for centuries, the more public figures exhibit religious fervor, the more likely it is that they are living a lie in their personal life. It may be naive to ask for a little (Christian?) humility, privacy and, more importantly, tolerance, including for the non-religious among us. But it is not more naive than to think that once in a while the unstable fusion of politics and religion won't explode in one or another politician's face, as it sadly just did in Obama's.

Comments

[JohnJames]

I often wonder if one of the reasons Christianity has been able to encroach so far upon politics in this country in recent decades might not be, ironically, that Americans have become fundamentally LESS devout than in times past and with that has come a decline in Bible literacy. How many people today really sit down and open that book? With this illiteracy has come a distorted view of the religion. The Bible has remarkably little to say about homosexuality ( Sodom and Gommorah isn't about sexuality at all but inhospitality, whereby a group of men threaten to rape other men not because they're homosexual but in order to humiliate them, i.e. treat them like women.) and has nothing to say about abortion. On the other hand the New Testament states clearly that adulterers are to be cast out of the church, no ifs, ands or buts. Ignorance of a religion allows for its manipulation by cynical politicians.

[sweetreason]

Other than your remarks about homosexuality (there are a small number of specific teachings in the New Testament against "exchanging the natural function" for an unnatural sexual expression--and this would preclude any except married heterosexual behavior) and abortion (the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and since abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life, it is clear that it would be covered under that Commandment), I would agree with your assessment. Jesus said that the way to heaven would be a narrow way and "broad is the path that leads to destruction." We prove that we belong to Him by our behavior. He gets to make the rules--He is God in human flesh and "all judgment has been given unto Him."

There is plenty in the New Testament about kind and gracious behavior--something I do not see in many of the Religious Right. Mike Huckabee (except for his unkind statements about homosexuals--they should never have been singled out as more extraordinary sinners than adulterers or thieves) often exemplifies the kindness, integrity and honesty that is supposed to characterize a Christian. Barack Obama seems to be of a similar stripe--albeit having been forced by the Clinton camp into defending against lies and slander and trying to combat the smokescreen that seems to protect HRC from valid criticism. Why isn't the mainline media pursuing the religious affiliations that she has? Hers is far more dangerous (read right-wing) than any of Jeremiah Wright's often well-founded objections to what has been done to his people.

[JohnJames]

So I take it you believe being gay is a choice and amounts to nothing more than a sex act and you don't believe there's such a thing as sexual orientation. Otherwise you have a view of sin not found anywhere in the Bible or any traditional Christian theology - some people (gays) are more sinful than others for simply being what they are. You're in a pickle. To put it another way - are you only heterosexual when you're experiencing sexual desire?

[derik]

If I recollect, even Queen Isabella and the Pope were dancing on the people with spiked shoes. Thank goodness they are no longer with us. Strangely, I think if it were not for the Queen I and the Pope many people would not have run away to far away places like the Americas. Either way, it seems all this religion, race and political things have been mixing for as long as our documented history. Many of those tribes and empires are now extinct. I hope we see the linkage before we mess up something good that, I believe, Jefferson saw. Albeit, evolution always wins.

[zjr909]

Besides religion being, arguably, the greatest evil ever perpetrated by humanity upon itself, just imagine the wonders that could be created and the problems that could be solved if the enormous energy public officials have to put into maintaining this schoolyard charade were put to constructive use. But, of course, the American people must have all their leaders vetted and certified by some or another religious leader. Theocracy? Hello: we've been in a theocracy for quite some time now; nobody's afixed the label yet, that's all. How do I know this? Because the term "blasphemy" is still used almost exclusively in connection with the god-head and almost never in connection with the Constitution. Yet, in a truly secular society, the only "blasphemy" would be the shredding and the mis-use of the Constitution. First, fourth, fifth, eighth amendments: already been seriously compromised. The rest to follow shortly.

[Outsideadog]

I'm in sympathy with the views of Intelinside and Epotruchyeahright which point to a move to 'the angels of our better nature' (Lincoln), which would align with wisdom.
After moving beyond the religious instruction of my childhood I discovered Buddhist thought and was amazed to find an invitation to trust one's own intuition and not uncritically accept the words of gurus, teachers, or the like (certainly not college drop-out media pundits one would think). It correlates to a notion called 'moral sense' in the Enlightenment age (via Hume, Hutcheson etc) and even emotional intelligence today (IMHO). I'm pretty sure there are calls to use one's God given reason in the Bible.
So in an environment of freedom of religious thought I can happily accept the enlightenment idea of the separation of church and state and simply remember the teaching of Buddha to the Kalamas people (new to his teachings like I was):
"Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor upon tradition, nor upon rumour, nor upon scripture, nor upon surmise, nor upon axiom, nor upon specious reasoning, nor upon bias towards a notion pondered over, nor upon another's seeming ability, nor upon the consideration 'The monk is our teacher.' When you yourselves know: 'These things are bad, blameable, censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them...When you yourselves know: 'These things are good, blameless, praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."
I'm not an American, but I'm sure the people of the world join with me in a prayer for a return to wisdom (and good old American know-how) some time soon.

[Intelinside]

Well said Paul, but you didn't go far enough...

As an atheist, (never indoctrinated as a child and came to the conclusion after 40 years of life) I no longer have any faith (yes faith!) in our country's future being a bright one.

If someone would have told me as a young adult that when I reached the age of fifty I would be witnessing the abolishment of science in our classrooms, (creationism?!) or I would have to suffer under the (excuse the word) leadership of a born again president with the intellect of a monkey; I would have replied that our country would have already imploded...

For those of us who are able to stand back and observe and experience life without the belief that some dude is watching and judging and controlling and, and, and; we see the horror and death that walks hand in hand with religious beliefs.

For the god lovers amongst you, how many times have you ever asked the question, if god is so great and knowing, why does he allow so much pain and suffering?

If your answer is, that is "his" test, and it is not for me to question, then I say, you're god is a creep.

Wake up people, our human nature is to love and be loved. It has nothing to do with a "god".

[Singha]

Good points.

Wasn't it the prophet, George Carlin who said, "If god is all-powerful...why can't he manage money? He always need more."

[sweetreason]

It's not God who needs the money--He already owns it all. It is the people He loans it to who have the problem--it is they who never seem to have enough. There are so many crooks and liars who are pretending to be Christians today that it is not surprising to see the hostility that the mere mention of the word brings to many. My Bible tells me that Jesus said that you cannot serve both God and money and that it is very difficult for the wealthy to enter heaven.

[sweetreason]

Intelinside, you can rail at God and call Him a "creep" but that will not change one thing on heaven or earth, it just confirms you in your hatred of Him. I would disagree that our nature is to love. Our human nature has become fatally flawed--we do not have an inclination to love but to hate because this world is ruled by Satan, the father of lies and hatred. Granted, God's original intention was that mankind would be holy in what was then a perfect world. Since the Fall, it is only God's influence on us that gives us the capacity to love. You raise the classic objection of those in rebellion against God. Why does God allow pain and suffering? The answer is that, like Jesus, He weeps at the suffering of humanity but His justice demands correction for sin. Humanity suffers because of choices that were made and are being made by sinful humans. But God has made a way through His Son to rise above this world of suffering and pain into an eternity with Him, in the perfection of His heaven. This world is cursed because of man's rebellion. Look around you--you can see the evidence of past perfection even in the midst of the degradation of the physical world and the decadence of humanity. But even with all this world's misery, God's grace affords us a chance to be bearers of His light. Suffering often has redemptive purposes--I can attest to that myself. Since mankind has thoroughly messed up, God is in the process of saving us one by one so that we can perfected upon arrival in His perfect heaven.

[Herrington]

Nothing on Earth raises my gorge more than a preacher from any faith, anywhere, at any time. Some lessons of core religious beliefs have some value, but the religions seem entirely bent on not applying ethical interpretations to those values. The result is a stunted and morally helpless majority that literally has no idea how to apply the principles they so vociferously laud.

And far from being helpful to most, even given charitable works, the attitudes and politics fostered by church’s of all stripes actually underwrite the most wicked injustices of our world. As we come to draw a battle line of ‘faith’ between Islam and Christianity, it should never have been more immediately clear that the plight of the people is the work of the religious equal to the evils of greedy capitalists. In fact, it appears to be the signature cause of American churches to excuse the greed that has ruined this country, with certain exceptions, notably Rev. Wright.

All that having been said, I have been defending Rev. Wright for days. Why? Because in nothing more than an anthological sense, he can’t help himself. He can’t any more than Pat Robertson, divorce himself from the demons he fears will take his soul if he were to stop being an idiot. So in some sense, I still subscribe to the adage of hating the sin and not the sinner, even though the temptation is practically irresistable. Now please excuse me while I puke.

[dshwa]

I too, have been defending Wright, but for a far more sinister reason: Wht he said was actually truth. Politically inconvenient (for Obama), and scary to the masses (or at least the voting white masses who watch cable news) but true. But as usual, our media didn't bother to go in depth (why would he say such things?) and went with their usual empty analysis and repeating of rightwing talking points as facts.

[sweetreason]

Religion has always been used by the powerful for nefarious purposes. Brutal right-wing dictators can often be seen piously entering their places of worship. It is part of the game of deceiving the masses into thinking that this or that politico is truly worthy of their fealty. On the other hand, Jeremiah Wright is a true man of God who believes that it is his job to denounce sin in the culture--he bears a resemblance to the one he is named after, the Old Testament prophet, Jeremiah.

[feo]

Ancient Egypt lasted 4,000 years with a state religion that, today, everyone sees as either silly or cute. Yo, Christians, consider that some day others will think the same thing about virgins giving birth etc. Oh, Muslims, don't mean to leave you out, but your fate is exactly the same. Yaweh, they name is Thorallahjeebus.

[laocoon]

This is all right wing political correctness on steroids!!!!! When my country is wrong about something I should be ashamed of its error. If I think it is wrong I would be remiss on many levels if I decline to point that out. heaven forbid I might criticize some error, even if persistent and endemic, in such a way that it might "sound" like I am criticizing America. America does wrong, I say so. If you do not like that you do not believe in the constitution and you are no patriot. If you feel your government or nation is wrong in some way you have a duty to criticize it. Falwell blamed America for 911 because we are too lenient towards "sin" Why is this treated differently? Bull. It saddens me to see how far from the original founders concepts of government the population has strayed. The one thing most right about america is the right of each person to verbally attack it when it is wrong.

[EspritDeVoltaire]

This is what happens when the focus of education is boosterism of the godliness of the nation rather than History, Science and the Arts. No matter how "liberal" most Americans believe themselves, at their core is the false belief that the US excretes ice cream, pees lemonade and could never, ever have actions which were not rubber stamped "Approved" by God Himself. If you doubt me, just suggest to someone that blowback from our foreign policy was likely connected to 9/11.

[dshwa]

Actually, someone did. His name is the Rev. Jeramiah Wright. Perhaps you've seen his speech about it on TV?

Great way of summming up Americans and our delusions though.

[JWLANDSCAPES]

I am a Hillary supporter, but I must say, I agree with truesoccermom however, in that I do believe Senator Obama can be one of the great presidents. He is my Senator, however, I think his move for the presidency is premature by 4 years and too big of a jump. I fear the "movement" aspect of his young supporters who display a fanaticism that alienates the rest of the voting base. The right candidate right now, is Hillary.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

What conservatives have displayed in this election is that you not only have to be a Christian (and not a Muslim as e-mail after e-mail insisted Obama was) but the *right kind* of Christian. Now they know Obama is a Christian, but his church is too scary.

Huckabee, who was honorable enough to stick up for Obama and his ex-pastor, was still mean enough to win Iowa basically by exploiting evangelicals' anti-Mormon prejudice. Romney: wrong kind of Christian (if a real Christian at all).

Huckabee himself should have been a God-send to the GOP but was not a Pat Robertson kind of Christian-- the only kind-- because he talked too much about helping poor people. Fred Thompson, from that bastion of Christian values, NBC, put Huckabee in his place in South Carolina. His place being: to park-- if not wash-- the Rolls Royces of Wall Street millionaires while they're inside the mansion writing the Republican platform.

Whenever Hillary Clinton went into a state where there are lots of Latinos, the words "prayer" and "faith" were on her lips almost as frequently as "um" and "you know."

Obama was ending his speeches with "Thank you, I love you" which was cool, but enter Drudge Report with African garb photo and he too succumbed to "God bless America." That's "bless," Hannity, not "damn."

Apparently, like most church-goers Obama has his own functioning brain. From the way he speaks, he seems more influenced by Joel Osteen than Jeremiah Wright.

Anyway, I'm an atheist-- so please disregard my irrelevant opinions above.

[Rescisco]

Mixing religion and politics is the work of fools and the burden of a suffering subjects.

[novowel4me]

Who was it that said, loosely quoted, "Fascism will come to the United States wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."

[EspritDeVoltaire]

Sinclair Lewis

[DemandTruth]

Its funny (meaning very sad) and ironic (very ironic) that the Regressive Religious Right loves to screech that us liberals won't be happy until every woman in America is wearing a burka, or that we're taliban or terrorist lovers!

What they fail to realize is that us crazy liberals and our wacky weird belief in that old "separation of church and state" thing as laid out in the Constitution are the main things PROTECTING our country and our way of life from Sharia law and the burka. After all, once you break down that wall, you may have a "Christian" theocracy for a while - like Huckabee's utopia - based on the bible. But once you go there, it's only a matter of time until some OTHER church's beliefs wiggle their way into the majority and take over the laws. What happens, all you Christians, when our leader's beliefs don't exactly match your own, and they decide to base all our laws on THEIR beliefs and not yours? Call it Old Testament Law, then call it New Testament Law, then call it Sharia Law - they are all the same.

And us liberals are the ONLY ones who will forever keep you safe from the burka. We won't tolerate Sharia law any more than we will tolerate your Christian law. Get it?

[sweetreason]

Actually, as a Christian, I quite agree that we should have a separation of Church and State. Church history illustrates, if nothing else, that Church and State combine to the debauching of each. However, I think that any form of government works best when the citizenry follow Christian principles of behavior. Our biggest problem as a nation is that, while most say they believe in God, a relative few behave as though He really does exist and that He is keeping score on our activities. So, I say, let the Church be the Church, sticking to its role in scolding hypocrites. And let the State be the State, sticking to its role as the purveyor of impartial protection and justice. By the way, English Common Law (on which most of our Law is based) was, in turn, based on the Ten Commandments. Our whole sense of justice flows out of that base. It is difficult to conceive of a system of laws that does not give a nod to Judeo-Christianity as informing any justice system. I can assure you that you would not want to live under Greek or Roman Law as it was practiced--especially if you were unfortunate enough to be a slave.

[Charmed]

The Church doesn't tell me how vote and the government sure isn't going to tell what type of church is acceptable for me to attend.

[newworldman777]

These politicians are pandering to an American Christian majority (80%) electorate: an ignorant, basically theocratic holier-than-thou lot of voters that discriminates against others of either a different faith or no faith at all. Unfortunately, for a politician to have any hope whatsoever of getting elected into a top political position in this society, he/she must pander to them. That pretty much says it all, as far as our founding fathers' vision is concerned, regarding America as being a country that is supposed to have a distinct separation of church and state. Such a separation has never existed in this country, and the religion that takes precedence over all others is Christianity.

This mixing of politics with religion has created huge problems for America. The majority of Americans believe that we should stand by Israel regardless of their treatment of the Palestinians, because their holy book, the Bible, instructs them that they should stand by Israel. We can all witness the problems that this biased support has caused America regarding our relations with Islamic countries. This is a perfect example of why mixing politics with religion is always detrimental to a country. Nevertheless, such mixing will continue, because that is simply the way that it is. I am just a simple worshipper of the pagan faith who is making an observation of the disturbing situation that pervades America.