RSS Feed
Base Public Policy on Shared Values, Not Religion
When Senator Obama delivered that speech in 2006, I said on State of Belief, The Interfaith Alliance Foundation’s radio program, that it was “the most impressive statement on faith and politics in recent memory and a refreshing departure from the self-righteous certainty of so many politicians.” But I am concerned if he and other candidates cross the line and allow religion to become part of their campaign strategy or appear to be applying religion to public policy.
Much of the present debate over public expressions of religion arose out of an increase in appeals to religion for the advancement of public policy positions. For example, President Bush has used denominationally-specific religious language to advance the so-called “faith based initiative” and to build support for the military invasion of Iraq and continued support for the war in Iraq, speaking to a convention of Christian broadcasters about the war as a component of one of the high moral hours in American history and of the faith-based initiative as a means of advancing biblically-based transformation. The use of religious rhetoric for such purposes is fraught with complications and problems.
Certainly religion and morality have a role to play in shaping public opinion on public policies. However, since government should never be a vehicle for establishing the sectarian views of any religion, government is best strengthened when religions focus their support on the core values of democracy—those values that advance the public good not the legislative agenda of a particular religion, those values that represent secular expressions of common religious convictions. Religious appeals for the support of civil rights differ dramatically from sectarian persuasion aimed at building support for government vouchers to finance religious education.
Religious people, whether as advocates for a specific public policy or campaign leaders for a particular politician running for elected office, should advance their opinions regarding public policy in a manner reflective of respect for a religiously pluralistic nation and for a government that has pledged its support for the guarantee of no establishment of religion.
Religion as a motivator for the support of a particular public policy agenda is perfectly understandable and appropriate. However, religion is inappropriate when used as the tool to gain support for that agenda. Once religion-based initiatives are introduced into the political process, those initiatives should be subject to the same critical evaluation, slings, and arrows that greet any other political initiative. Pointing to a religious motivation or claiming religious authority for a certain political position does not exempt that position from the scrutiny and criticism that are a vital part of the political process.
I find it in the best interest of my personal faith to support a government that is secular. I come to that conviction not because of a low view of religion but because of my passionate conviction about the importance of religion. I do not want the government advancing my faith or any faith, religion over non-religion or non-religion over religion.
That being said, I would not attempt to silence a politician who chooses to speak of her or his religious convictions. Actually, I think it is healthy for all of us to speak of our religion when it is natural to do so. In a political campaign, a candidate’s reference to his or her religion can be a valid and helpful form of self-identification. However, when a politician suggests that her or his religion should be a primary reason for people to elect him or her to public office, I insist on probing questions: What role will religion play in your decision-making on legislative issues and foreign policy? Will you use your elected office as a base from which to advance your particular religion?
I also have grave difficulties with politicians who fill their campaigning for public office with speeches devoted to sectarian-specific theologizing and activities aimed at using religious education as a cover for partisan persuasion. I find Mr. Obama’s electoral “faith clubs” as disturbing as his Sunday sermons in which he asks Christian congregations to pray for his ability to bring in “the kingdom.” I am appalled at a senior Senator who declares that the United States Constitution established the United States as a “Christian nation” as Senator McCain opined. I find problematic Mr. Romney’s suggestion that freedom depends on religion. Mr. Huckabee’s suggestion that the words of the Bible should replace words of the Constitution frightens me as does his easy identification with divine power as the driving force of his campaign. I continue attempts to change Senator Clinton’s mind about her support for the faith-based initiative.
In the most religiously pluralistic nation in the world, some candidates for the White House seem to aspire more to the position of pastor-in-chief than commander-in-chief. Those who want to lead our nation seem to be among the worst offenders in efforts related to remove the religious freedom clauses from the First Amendment and to lift Article VI completely out of the Constitution. Support for an unqualified freedom for public expressions of religion is open to serious question in my mind. What is the purpose? Is the expression a matter of public witness, of political strategy, or of proselytism? It makes a difference! Let us not forget that not all people who use religious language are really religious and not all people who are really religious use religious language.
Religion has a vital, public role to play in the life of this nation. But it ought not be one that spawns deep divisions, seeks the establishment of a theocracy in which one person or party claims the role of “Theo,” threatens the constitutional provisions of religious liberty, seeks to negate the beauty and the blessing of religious pluralism, or elevates one religion to a status that disparages all who do not embrace it.
By
Welton Gaddy
|
February 22, 2008; 11:20 AM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Politicians Can't Serve Two Masters |
Next: Obama's Three Levels of Oratory
Posted by: goldie wilbur | June 13, 2008 12:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Currently I am writing a research paper on the use of religion by government officials in order to gain civilian support. I have seen most of the senators use religion in their speeches. I question their intentions and am opossed to any reference towards religion by any politician. Even today i question US currency because "in god we trust" does not apply to many. It is clear to me that any use of religion in political issues is an attempt to gain support.
Posted by: bellarmine college prep student 09 | February 25, 2008 2:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Humans and our actions are inherently imperfect. Any assertion that any of us actually know with certainty what "God wants" is a delusion. Anything resembling a theocracy would therefore be a profoundly idolatrous and self-serving error. A religion that attends more to strengthening and extending its power structure than to the loving service of others is very much like a theocracy.
There is no constructive place for dogma or religious crusading in public policy. There is, however, a desperate need for policy and action rooted in humility (awareness of one's limits), compassion (sharing in our neighbor's suffering and relief),charity(give unto others) and justice(fair balance of resources, opportunity and power). These are acheivable without religion, but true religious faith can provide a structure that reminds and supports us in our exercise of these qualities.
A candidate who reaches inside for faith-based strength in the service of justice and peace may well be using religion legitimately and constructively. Political debate may be constuctively informed from this position. A candidate who is using claims of faith to strengthen his/her own power, or the power of a particular religion, is corrupt and such efforts will further corrupt political debate and policy.
"Love God with all thy heart and mind, and love thy neighbor as thyself."
Thank you.
Posted by: Jamie Karn | February 23, 2008 10:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Personally I believe there would be much less chaos in the world without religion, or more accurately, with tribalism (which can be religious, nationalist, racial, political, etc.) In order to have successful pluralism people have to realize that while their religion (or national origin, or race, or politics) may be very important to them personally, it isn't necessarily important to anyone else, and it shouldn't have to be. To accept that and to live accordingly is to be humble. People elevate religion to a position in the public sphere which is doesn't deserve and where it doesn't belong and that's the real root of the divisions it causes. I do agree that it has much to do with people's egos. I don't care what you believe until you try to make me care, or insist that I should. Then we divide into tribal camps. Until people learn to put their humanity first and their religion second there will never be truly successful pluralism.
Posted by: Chip | February 22, 2008 9:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Agree with Mr. Gaddy that religion has a vital public role to play in the life of this nation or any nation for that matter.
To be religious is to be a peace maker, one who constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures good will for the peaceful co-existence. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; life and matter. Indeed that is the purpose religion.
Indeed, it is the words that start the wars and builds communities. It is the inspirational words of Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Buddha, Zarthustra, Mahavir, Krishna, Bahaullah, Nanak, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa’s words that have changed the world.
Much of the good in the world has happened because of religion, without which there will be much chaos.
My definition of religious pluralism is, if we can learn to accept and respect every which way one worships the creator (or cause of creation to include our Atheist and Agnostic friends), then conflicts fade and solutions emerge. Religion in never the source of conflict, it is the ego of the individual that is the source of all conflicts, destruction, wars and genocides. It is those individuals who did not understand the purpose of the religion, which is to bring peace to an individual and balance to a society, so all can co-exist in relative peace and harmony. God wants us to co-exist.
Religion is a beautiful thing, but we have to understand the purpose of it, then it will not be a conflict.
Mike Ghouse
www.foundationforpluralism.com
http://foundationforpluralism.blogspot.com
www.MikeGhouse.net
Posted by: Mike Ghouse | February 22, 2008 3:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Explain please, why does Obama end his speeches without the usual "God bless you" kind of statement like Senator McCain?
Did you notice that while giving a speech at the site of a closed auto plant he said, "...moved to China" and the little quiver in his voice when he said it? That factory was moved to Mexico. It doesn't have anything to do with the Latino vote does it?
It's an ill wind that blows nobody good. It's an awesome wind that blows everyone good. The only thing we can say for sure is the wind is still blowing. Thank God for that.
I know it. You know it. We know it. The Bible is a proved hoax. It's time for a NEW sacred scripture that's a little more inclusive. No, we won't be giving up God but the Devil must go.
The ones who need that the most are the Devil worshipers, all three great faiths. We can't expect Devil to give up without a terrible fight. We can only hope nukes are not necessary.
Maybe if we honored the constitution, do away with the notion of 'recognized' religions that would make the transition easier and maybe unnecessary? Without such, 'recognized' religions it is impossible to write a law that uses the word religion -unless the law contains unrecognized words.
I know, those clever politicians will use alternate words that mean religion like charity or faith so we can expect a little discord as the fact that the Bible is a proved literary hoax makes it's way to the public square.
Posted by: BGone | February 22, 2008 12:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
That was an excellent essay, Mr. Gaddy. As an atheist I find it very comforting to read such reasoned opinions from an Evangelical. I think you do a great service to your fellow believers by reminding those of us who don't believe that religious faith isn't necessarily mutually exclusive from appreciating and defending our secular heritage and its importance. That's an easy thing to forget these days. Currently the intrusion of religion into politics and government is at a level greater, and the nation more bitterly divided, than I've ever seen before. That correlation surely isn't a coincidence.
Posted by: Chip | February 22, 2008 12:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
America was established as a Christian nation. If you read the Constitution and Federalist papers, you will see that all the men at that time were either pastors or lay members of churches. I read where Washing prayed before Valley Forge, if you ever watched Coral Ridge Hour, you could or maybe you wouldn't realize that, the pastor I watched for a long time from that church passed on about a year ago, but he had many, many proofs of a christian Nation, of America. I suggest you watch the Coral Ridge Hour from Florida, just a suggestion, God Bless gjw