Religion as a political weapon

RickRebel
RickRebel's picture
Posts: 327
Joined: 2007-01-16
User is offlineOffline
Religion as a political weapon

This is an OP/ED article in today's USA Today 12-3-2007:

 


Religion as a political weapon

Though the Founders sought to avoid the communion between politics and faith, presidents of the past three decades have thought, and acted, otherwise. Carter ran proudly as a Southern Baptist but honored the church-state line while in office. But beginning with Reagan, that distinct line began to fade.

By David Domke

On a July evening in 1980 at the Republican Party presidential convention, Ronald Reagan sent a religious signal that still reverberates throughout American politics.

Before raucous delegates and a national television audience, Reagan was approaching the end of his acceptance speech when he departed from his prepared remarks: "I have thought of something that's not a part of my speech and worried over whether I should do it." He paused, then continued:

"Can we doubt that only a Divine Providence placed this land, this island of freedom, here as a refuge for all those people in the world who yearn to breathe free? Jews and Christians enduring persecution behind the Iron Curtain; the boat people of Southeast Asia, of Cuba and of Haiti; the victims of drought and famine in Africa; the freedom fighters in Afghanistan; and our own countrymen held in savage captivity."

Reagan went on, "I'll confess that" — and here his voice faltered momentarily — "I've been a little afraid to suggest what I'm going to suggest." A long pause ensued, followed by this: "I'm more afraid not to. Can we begin our crusade joined together in a moment of silent prayer?" The hall went silent, heads bowed. He then closed with words uncommon at the time: "God bless America."


It was grand political theater, designed to invoke beliefs of American exceptionalism and to entice fundamentalists and evangelicals who were newly mobilized by organizations such as the Moral Majority. Four months later, Reagan won the presidency with significant support from these voters. A new era of religious politics had dawned — to the delight of many, to the chagrin of others and with enduring impact on all.

For presidential candidates today, having faith isn't enough; it must be displayed, carefully and publicly. It's a dangerous dynamic, one that runs counter to the Founders' vision for America. Unfortunately, with the Iowa caucuses a month from now, there's no sign it's going away. (Indeed, see accompanying piece on the candidates.)

The God strategy

God and religion have always been part of U.S. politics, but a turning point occurred three decades ago. In 1976, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, Jimmy Carter made his Southern Baptist faith a centerpiece of his presidential campaign. Once in the White House, however, Carter's policies and strict separation of church and state disappointed the growing religious conservative movement. These voters were up for grabs in 1980.

Reagan responded with what my colleague Kevin Coe and I call the God strategy: a mixture of political voice and agenda that is primarily secularized, while — in the words of Doug Wead, who headed George H. W. Bush's 1988 campaign outreach to evangelicals — finding opportunities to "signal" sympathy for religious conservatives' views. This method worked so well that it triggered a sea change in U.S. politics.

Our analysis of more than 15,000 public communications by political leaders from Franklin Roosevelt's election in 1932 — the beginning of the modern presidency — through six years of George W. Bush's administration revealed a striking increase in religious signals beginning in 1980. In party platforms, presidential addresses to the nation, White House proclamations, speeches before audiences of faith, and even celebrations of Christmas, presidential candidates on both sides of the partisan aisle now eagerly engage in religious politics. Consider two examples:

Reagan's 1980 convention address changed the nature of these speeches. From 1952, when acceptance addresses began to be televised live, through 1976, Democratic and Republican nominees invoked God on average 2.4 times per address and included common faith terms 11.8 times per address.

In contrast, since 1984 the GOP nominee has invoked God an average of 5.2 times per address — more than doubling the previous level — and included 19.5 faith terms. That's a 65% increase. Among Democrats, Walter Mondale in 1984 and Michael Dukakis in 1988 made only a handful of religious references, but beginning with Bill Clinton in 1992, the party's nominees have averaged 4.3 God invocations and 16.5 faith terms per address — increases of 77% and 40% over pre-1980 levels. Presidential candidates are now afraid of being seen as the apostate in the room. They use these speeches to signal that they're not.

The 'pilgrimages'

Another tactic is for politicians to make "pilgrimages" to speak before audiences of faith. From FDR through Carter, presidents averaged 5.3 public remarks before overtly religious organizations in a four-year term. Beginning with Reagan through six years of George W. Bush's presidency, this average more than tripled to 16.6 per term. For example, since 1981 GOP presidents have spoken 13 times to the National Association of Evangelicals or the National Religious Broadcasters Association, four times to the Knights of Columbus, and four times to the Southern Baptist Convention.

Clinton never spoke to these conservative organizations, but he did go to church — again and again. From FDR through Carter, presidents delivered public remarks in churches an average of twice per four-year term. In contrast, Clinton spoke in churches 28 times during two terms in the White House — 10 more visits than Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. (through six years) combined. Clinton spoke in worship services, at funerals and often before African-American congregations, including an extemporaneous talk in 1993 in the Memphis pulpit from which Martin Luther King Jr. had delivered his final sermon. Clinton'slower-profile approach worked perfectly in a political party often divided over matters of faith.

The American experiment

Such acts of communion between political and religious leaders are exactly what the nation's Founders sought to avoid. Many of these men were deeply religious, but they were only an ocean removed from the religious strife that had plagued Europe for centuries. With these experiences in mind, they created a Constitution that doesn't contain a single mention of God and prohibits religious tests for those seeking office.

This was an astonishing position at the time, but it defined the American experiment and has served it well. The United States today, for all its problems, is both a robust democracy and one of the world's most religiously diverse nations. Each of these is at serious risk when religion is employed over and over as a political weapon.

To grasp what is at stake, we might recall another presidential campaign pilgrimage: John Kennedy's address before conservative Protestant clergy in September 1960. Unlike current candidates, the Catholic Kennedy promised a White House in which decisions would be made "without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates." Such a presidency was essential, he said, because "today, I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart."

It was a winning message then. It's one desperately needed today.

 

David Domke is a professor and head of journalism in the Department of Communication at the University of Washington. He is a co-author, with Kevin Coe of the University of Illinois, of the just-published The God Strategy: How Religion Became A Political Weapon in America.

Frosty's coming back someday. Will you be ready?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I challenge USA today to

I challenge USA today to send the artical to every presidental canidate. This type of artical needs to be on prime time in every household in America.

The founders knew the divisive nature of religious politics, not just in Europe, but pre-revolutionary law was quite sectarian and quite divisive and blasphemy laws with the death penalty existed in Virgina while Jefferson served in the State Senate before the revolution.

This is what has been lacking in civics classes. People mistake "freedom" as their freedom to dominate others. The founders never wanted what is going on today. They WERE for freedom of religion through freedom of concious. To them, religion was an issue left up to you, the individual, and not something to be used in common law making, and not something to be used as a political weapon.

Bravo to USA TODAY. I sincerly hope more and more mainstreem media catch on to this.

I would have voted for Kennedy and I voted for Kerry, they were both Christians. I didnt base my vote on there label, I base my vote on their ability to uphold the Constitution.

How is it an atheist votes for a Christian? For the same reason a Christian should be willing to vote for an atheist. Not because they have the deity thing in common, but because they should have the ability to find common ground beyond the religious label.

Adams it could be argued was more of a devote Christian. Conversely Jefferson was a flat out deist who rejected the magic of the birth and death of Jesus and also said that even questioning the existance of god was better than blindly following.

There are far too many lemmings both on the left politically and on the right politically who make demands of politicians based on religious labels which is exactly what the founders saught to avoid.

In my life I have been lucky enough to see, not only the diversity of this country, but also outside it's boarders. Here is what I see, even outside my own world. I see people worried about the same mundain problems I have. I see them worry about war. I see them worry about how they will pay their bills. I see them disire freedom. I see them wanting safty and decent jobs. I see them worry about family. All these common worries trandsend politics, religion and country.

I think the founders saw this and diliberatly said that the only way that we will be able to get allong is that deeply personally held beliefs should not be interfered with by goverment but also should not take any position favoring one over another. It was ment to be an issue of individual concious, not a matter of public motto or common law.

The diversity of the beliefs of the founders could never have been called "solely Christian". It is because of their diversity that they did not mention the Christian god or Jesus or ANY DEITY in the Constitution. It is because they knew people had different ideas and beliefs that they said that "no religious test" can be applied as requirement to hold office.

It is why today that we have Jews a Muslim and now our first openly atheist Congressmen. If our goverment was "for Christian use only" then this would not be possible. If the founders had intended for a "Christian use only" goverment then the oath of office would have made it manditory to swear an oath to Jesus.

I am glad they didnt do that. I am glad that they learned from the divisive theocracies of Europe and saught to excape the sectarian squabbling in the states with a new form of goverment that was NOT hostle to religion, but did not prop it up either.

I think these Candidates today have no clue how divisive they have made this country. I dont think they have any clue how their pandering to Christians only has divided Christians and aleinated non-Christian citizens of all labels.

An American to me is an American. If you are born in this country or legally naturalized and are in good standing, you are an American no matter your belief or lack of. The age of theocracies should be a thing of the past. I fear however, because of the focus of both the Republicans and Democrats solely shouting, "Jesus love me best", we are backsliding into the very thing the founders faught and rightfully escaped.

The best thing all citizens can do is leave that issue to themselves. The best thing politicians can do is to leave that issue up to the individual.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Zombie
RRS local affiliate
Zombie's picture
Posts: 573
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I have to say, religion has

I have to say, religion has been used as a political weapon for most of recorded history. I'm suprised it took so long for it to happen in america.

Morte alla tyrannus et dei