Spiritual Spin

Every candidate understands he or she must profess some religious belief as a prerequisite for running for office. I'm fairly certain a healthy percentage of political officeholders don't actually hold the supernatural beliefs they profess, but understand that's the price of being in the arena.

Morman, Christian (Evangelical or otherwise), Muslim, Wiccan or Pagan...the particular flavor of invisible-friend-with-superpowers doesn't much matter. From a personal point of view (and I understand it's a minority point of view), only when candidates convince me both of their true belief and that they would make governing decisions based on that belief (i.e., Huckabee), is the candidate unqualified to hold office. That does usually rule out Fundamentalists of any flavor, as their faith nearly always mandates they establish the rules by which others must act.

LAMBERT STRETHER writes:

"Faith is the easiest thing in the world to fake."

It has always seemed to me that the fact that the Bush administration has not been struck down by an angry God is an excellent argument for atheism."

Absolute proof that god does not exist can be summed up in two words:

Christian Rock (as in music).

"Faith is the easiest thing to fake."

Amen to that.

You have no doubt noted the several threats of violence, or wishes to commit violence, made by Pastor Huckabee and his spokeperson, another fundamentalist, Chuck Norris -- towards opponent Mitt Romney.

There has been no actual incorporation of Christ's words, "Love thy enemies, Do good to those that hate you" into these lives. But I'll bet you Huckabee could recite back the chapter and verse!

"All a faith test for office would do, Jefferson argued, is to tempt candidates to the “sin of hypocrisy.” In effect, Jefferson argued, if you make religious faith a condition of electability, you are just begging to be lied to."

The sin of hypocrisy??? Hahahahah!!!! I can honestly say I have never met a politician who wasn't hypocritical in one way or another.

Geez, they promise you the universe when running and you are lucky if you receive a pebble once they are elected.

Terry,

While I am in agreement that Huckabee has been playing the religious card and literally thumping his chest with it, as you describe, I differ that Romney has. Romney has said as little as possible about religion -- but he was hounded and hounded about it anyway. Nearly every reporter that spoke to him turned the subject to religion. It was made the focus of attention by others, not by him. Then he'd get criticized for not wanting to talk about it....

Romney avoided giving that Faith in America speech for as long as he could -- until it seemed the only way to settle the subject.

BRAVO!!!!

KACOO: just to quibble, prayer in school was found to be unconstitutional in '64 (or '63, whatever), it didn't become unconstitutional then. Had the question been raised before then, theoretically the same decision would have been reached. Madison thought it completely improper for the Congress to have a chaplain open sessions with prayer, so at a minimum it would have been an interesting debate.

and you still didn't name any politicians taking those positions, as opposed to private citizens represented by public interest lawyers.

that said, you of course have a point that secularism has won a few battles along the way, but that has only served to rally the religious right to counter attack by crossing the political line by any means or candidates available.

"Faith" means trust. Lately, it has become a substitute word for "religious." I know alot of religious people who would call themselves "relgious" but would not call themselves "people of faith" becaue that is not really a natural way of speaking English. It is a media word, and religious people only use that word when they are seeking to mimmic the media, for example, in their campaign ads.

It is important to judge a person's religion when they are running for public office. When I am judgeing a candidate's relgion, I am not examining the details of his belief nor weighing one theological point against another; I am merely examining his reputation as a tolerant or intolerant person.

A person who has wrapped themselves up in intolerant relgious views has to answer for all that on election day. Mike Huckabee might be a nice enough fellow in alot of ways, but he is an ordained Baptist minister. He frames much of his campaign rhetoric in the Baptist idiom.

Well, guess what? Alot of Americans are not Christians, and most Christians are not Baptists. And even more, even among Protestants, Baptists are well known, and famous, even notorious for being difficult people when it comes to matters of relgious tolerance.

It is a conflict of interest, plain and simple, for a Baptist minister to be President of the United States. I have no problem with him practicing his relgion any way he wants to as an American citizen, nor participaing in public life in any way that he chooses, nor in working on political campaigns if he chooses to, but by the choices he has made in life, and by the associations that he has cultivated, he has disqualified himself as a suitable candidate for President.

Just once, I would like to see a candidate respond to a question regarding the specifics of his/her religious faith with something along the lines of either, "None of your business." or "If you have to ask me, then I must not be doing it right."

I have long believed that a persons theology is revealed more by what they do rather than what they say. If a persons faith is the summary of what they beieve about maintaining the dignity of human life then I will watch how they have "acted" on health care, the environment, education, the death penalty, immigration policies and decisions to go to war.
Faith on its own is a meaningless concept. The object of that faith and the corresponding behavior it expects is what gives faith meaning.

I have long believed that a persons theology is revealed more by what they do rather than what they say. If a persons faith is the summary of what they beieve about maintaining the dignity of human life then I will watch how they have "acted" on health care, the environment, education, the death penalty, immigration policies and decisions to go to war.
Faith on its own is a meaningless concept. The object of that faith and the corresponding behavior it expects is what gives faith meaning.

I have long believed that a persons theology is revealed more by what they do rather than what they say. If a persons faith is the summary of what they beieve about maintaining the dignity of human life then I will watch how they have "acted" on health care, the environment, education, the death penalty, immigration policies and decisions to go to war.
Faith on its own is a meaningless concept. The object of that faith and the corresponding behavior it expects is what gives faith meaning.

This distilled clarification of a voter's fundamental duty ought to be required reading for new citizens and high school seniors. Houses of worship should circulate it. Christians aren't necessarily more gullible, but after being outed by Bush II, they're popularly viewed as dupes and ridiculed to an extent that is already eroding their influence. Thanks Ms. Thistlethwaite for your sage analysis, which can be extrapolated to any single issue that voters use as a personal litmus test.

I have to agree with the sentiment that most politicians step very gingerly around the topic of religion in public forums today - although a few are beating their breasts loudly with sanctimonious self-righteousness (e.g.Romney and Huckabee). Nobody dares being viewed as 'non-religious'..... although Ron Paul fans would beg to differ! Hey, Ron is a republican from that most biblical of bible belts, Texas. He knows how to do act like a Baptist when he has to......

This is all thanks to Bush and his Dominionist buddies, of course - they managed to create the illusion that religion was a much bigger issue in the USA than it actually is, and have been the unparalleled masters of controlling public perception like no other administration.

No one heretofore has gained voluntary control of the mass media like Bushco. The poster above rightfully points out that folks like Cheney/Rove have been enablers and men apparently without scruples, religious or otherwise, and have been the perfect hatchet men for evangelicals behind the scenes - power being their personal religion.

The big danger politicians on the stump face is opposition forces mis-using, mis-quoting, and generally abusing extemporaneous statements made in transient situations & circumstances - to political advantage. In this contest we expected to see plenty of this scurrilous behavior (especially from the GOP) , and have not been disappointed thus far.

Eventually someone somewhere is going to want to hear about real issues and real solutions, but maybe I'm being optomistic - the media will have to change gears pretty quickly at that point, because the media fuels dissention and spreads bad news, and will create both where none exists if necessary! Apparently the creation of chronic tension is the prevailing modus operandi behind all media management decisions.

Another poster suggested that we pay attention to what people do, rather than what they say. No one could improve on that bit of sage advice, especially when it comes to politicians.

Susan says “Faith is the easiest thing to fake.” I certainly won’t disagree. Especially since the word itself is so amorphous. I wonder what Susan’s personal definition of “faith” is and how faith is defined at the Chicago Theological Seminary.

Is it faith in the supernatural? Faith that the bible is factual? Faith that the Bible serves as a sound basis for Christianity irrespective of whether it’s factual or not? Faith that faith, even if undefined and amorphous, is somehow better that not having faith? Is maintaining faith in the face of well-known and accepted contrary historical, archeological and biological evidence considered a badge of honor among seminary professors and students?

Is passing on this faith-as-fact to a new generation of Christians seen as a noble and good thing to do? How do you justify this?

"The reeling English drunkard made the rolling English road."

If you don't mind, let me know the reference from this quote. This could be really interesting!

In my opinion, the problem here is not "faith." We have created a system in which politicians have become creatures of publicists, pollsters, brand managers, and marketers. Those people are not paid to care about issues, they are paid to craft an image for the politician that will result in political power. Anything that could interfere goes right out the window... including genuine (as opposed to contrived) honesty, true spontaneity, and the courage it takes to tell the electorate bad news. "Faith" is caught up in this only because there is widespread belief that it can deliver votes big-time. If the marketing vermin that run the political process thought that philosophy would sell the same way, the politicans would be loudly professing their appreciation of Plato, Augustine, Spinoza, or Sartre. Now wouldn't that be worth a laugh!

Thank you.

"Faith is the easiest thing in the world to fake."

It has always seemed to me that the fact that the Bush administration has not been struck down by an angry God is an excellent argument for atheism.

Pam. You quote:
"With the rise of secularism in America beginning with the elimination of public school prayer in 1964, politicians have sometimes found that denial of religion is also an effective way to win votes. So some now do that."
Then you ask : "Name one"
I say: Bravo Pam

Rev. Thistlethwaite, surprisingly as President of a theological school, has a superficial concept of "faith". Accordingly, it is not surprising that she says "Faith is the easiest thing to fake." A few Bible passages, etc.

Any fool or parrot can then be or look faithful and it seems today that definition is common currency. Given what I see on TV, besides quoting the Bible, hands held upward and swaying (a la rock festivals) is also a good sign of the faithful. Let us also not forget forever attending How- To classes, buying the latest trendy books and tapes, pious bumper stickers, t-shirts with Biblical expressions or anti-abortion slogans, etc.

Religion in America is joined to the Holy Trinity of our culture: Fast, Fun and Easy. Inwardness, the privcy of character, individuation and the courage of self-knowledge that flows from that 'faith' are passe and absent.

Let it all hang out, turn up the volume, share it before you have it.

It makes one wonder if Christ would laugh, cry, or join a Buddhist monastery in Tibet.

I agree that faith should not be the "calling card", but what happens when a popular candidate's faith views dictate his appointment of the Secy of Education...no evolution, no geology, careful with literature? Science is out- Bible is scientific text for all we need. We have a real problem in this country because no one will dare say the Bible is a wonderful cultural faith book that was composed-mostly orally- about 3000-5000 years ago. We need it for truth, faith, but not facts.

I agree that faith should not be the "calling card", but what happens when a popular candidate's faith views dictate his appointment of the Secy of Education...no evolution, no geology, careful with literature? Science is out- Bible is scientific text for all we need. We have a real problem in this country because no one will dare say the Bible is a wonderful cultural faith book that was composed-mostly orally- about 3000-5000 years ago. We need it for truth, faith, but not facts.

I grew up in a Fundamentalist home. I learned early as an observant child, to watch those who prayed the loudest and professed Jesus at every opportunity.
When I left that religion (running, not walking) I joined a church that spoke to my needs.
When I began to teach Sunday School, I learned all over again this one thing:
NEVER, EVER listen to what they say. ALWAYS watch what they do and have done 'in the name of God.'

Pam, there are numerous examples of politicians seeking political support by opposing religion.

For example, politicians who oppose prayer in public schools led by teachers, those who oppose prayer in school led by students, those who oppose prayer in school when it is silent, and those who oppose prayer in school when it is just called a moment of silence.

America had seperation of church and state in 1963 and it had prayer in public school too. Today politicians campaign to remove religion from all forms of public life under the slogan of seperating church and state. They of course say they're not opposed to religion per se, just some particular religious practice that violates their interpretation of the constitution.

Often people complain about the "rise" of the religious right. Kevin Phillips even wrote a frightening book about it. In fact though, America is more secular today than it has ever been. Prayer in school has been unconstitutional since 1964 and yet some folks are in a panic over America becoming a theocracy.

Strangely, with all our free speech and forums for discussion and debate, we know the word theocracy but not the statism.

The Obfuscating Jihadist noted that piety is easy to fake. Knowing what she does about her womanizing, illiterate, warmongering, hallucinating founder and then bowing to him five times a day is significant fake piety.

i wood tend two agrre with the tennants put fourth bye your article....the question i guess i would be asking you or the candidates is why when you notice a person has ... not.... done the things in the past that wood be in accordance with the wishes of the majority of constituants....or yourself... why would anyone believe they would actually due differrently in the future simply because they say they have faith....or agree with you on 1 or two issues...if the truely represent what you stand 4 and have faith and spirituality and values there will be solid evidence to back this up...they will have already been working towards them... if they are bought and paid for instead of elected you will get only false promises....including faith, somewher in this scenario the words fool me once your fault fool me twice my fault or perhaps people who go to church are 2 stupid or careless or ignorant to understand the difference... this wouldn't be my first guess butt eye could bee wrong... but eye would challenge all people of faith to trust but verify....ignorance can easily be cured by investigation and learning the facts... people smart enough to seak spirituality are in my experience rarely if ever stupid people....careless and lazy somtimes butt knott stupehead.... eyme jist an artist

/\ Yeah, i would like to see that list too.

By the way, did we really "eleminate" prayer in school? Seems to me that anyone can pray anywhere anytime.

"With the rise of secularism in America beginning with the elimination of public school prayer in 1964, politicians have sometimes found that denial of religion is also an effective way to win votes. So some now do that."

Name one.

gkchesterton--"The reeling English drunkard made the rolling English road." Same one??

Faking an orgasm is difficult, compared to faking faith.

Using religion to win votes is a tradition older than democracy itself. Kings, Emporers, and various dictators either claimed themselves to be gods or said that God had approved their rule. They sought to win the support of the governed by acting religous.

In modern times, politicians use religion to persuade voters that they are guided by values the voters hold dear -- usually Christian values. With the rise of secularism in America beginning with the elimination of public school prayer in 1964, politicians have sometimes found that denial of religion is also an effective way to win votes. So some now do that.

Wherever the votes are -- with religion or against religion -- you will find politicians angling for advantage.

Not That Simple -

Jefferson was a Gnostic ... now I suspected all along there was something different about Jefferson's 'deism'. It kind of makes me wonder if other of our forefathers were similarly inclined? In those days one might admit to being a Unitarian, but never a Gnostic!

Mysteries of the faith revealed .. ??!

I don't see why it is easier to lie about one's relgious convictions than to lie about one's moral and political convictions - one's patriotism, one's concern for taxpayers, the sick or any other constituency. There are tests, like regular attendance at places of worship and serious acquaintance with sacred texts, which can be applied if one cares to apply them to the claims and professions which politicians make. It's indeed wrong to be sectarian and narrow minded but one can't be open minded and understanding towards those of different opinions if one doesn't know what opinions others have. To me it seems rather spooky to demand that people who seek public office keep quiet about what's important to them. Jefferson was very open in later life, particularly in letters intended for publication, about his unorthodox, Marcionite beliefs: which was good, though I'm not sure that he was quite that open when he was politically active.

The fact that religion is a fake is not that bad as humanity needs something to cling to and religion serves a purpose. It just needs to be understood that way rather than have folks, like little children, thinking its real.

What the world doesn't need is the banding together in effectively a criminal enterprise to claim Providence's favor for worldly gain.

That is basically what we have in religion today.

Most religous 'theory' and 'dogma' has degenerated into nothing more than criminal enterprise. The human mind is given way too much credit for being able to figure things out and to perform in an 'integrity' manner.

The current crop of presidential candidates should read Arun Gandhi's essay here. He relates this about his grandfather:

...some missionaries, who were friends of my grandfather, Mohandas K. Gandhi, asked him why the oppressed were not accepting their offer. Grandfather's response was bitterly truthful. He said: "The day you stop talking about how good Christianity is and start living it, everyone will want to become a Christian."

I routinely dismiss the public profession of faith by ANYONE. If you are so darn saved it should be obvious in your actions and therefore I don't need you to tell me. When some business person uses religious symbols to promote their business I put my hand over my wallet and go somewhere else. Politicians crowing about Jesus affects me the same way. Could you christians quit yapping it and start living it. I'm tired of the constant chin music. Most of you must have a cramp from patting yourselves on the back.

Jeff P,

Thanks for the kind words and the book recommendation.

One of the things I love about my country is the fact that within a short distance from my home are catholic churches, protestant churches, Mormon temple, a Buddhist sangha, a Jewish temple, a Mosque, and on and on. Or, I could choose none of the above. That's what makes the U.S. great: freedom of/from religion.

To inject ones religion into politics in order to garner votes certainly doesn't appeal to me. I think we are soon going to have a backlash against those who cheapen real Faith. Once you start on that road it's first...you have to be Christian. Then it's, but are you the right kind of Christian?

I've always wondered about the gullibility and credulity of the religious voter, the values voter as they like to call themselves - as if they are the only people who have values.

I have a theory about why the religious voter demands religious pandering from those they perceive has having power and seeking power.

They want affirmation of their own faith. They want to know that people who are smarter than they, stronger than they, more power than they are ... have the same faith. Perhaps deep down inside they haven't been able to suppress their sense of disbelief as well as they'd like. Perhaps their strength of faith isn't strong enough?

"Just wondering. Is, "President of Chicago Theological Seminary" a good paying job? Like you said, "Faith is the easiest thing to fake." Even miracles can be "faked"?

Shouldn't we call on Jerry Lee Lewis to do a few bars of, "Whole Lot of Faking Going On" -- at church -- everywhere?"

Regarding your statements about Pat Robertson, I couldn't agree with you more, BGone, but I certainly wouldn't lump Dr. Thistlethwaite or Christianity as a whole in the same category.

The church members just up from where I live decided a couple of years ago to spend as much on the Darfur relief effort as they did on their own Christmas presents that year. They ended up raising just shy of 1 million dollars. It's pretty cool to know that much needed crops had been planted and have been harvested to feed the hungry of that war torn country. In their own words, they did this because it was Jesus' birthday and not their birthday.

Even if I was not a Christian, I certainly wouldn't lump them with the likes of Pat Robertson or the many other examples of "Christianity gone bad" that we could list in this forum. Sometimes, the church gets it right.

Happy New Year.

Chris Everett:

Thanks for the post. I just completed reading a book by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson called "Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)." An excellent read on "...why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts." This cognitive dissonance applies through an individual level to the methods of a nation and national policy.

I always enjoy reading your posts. Thanks, and happy new year to all!

PS (Watching the fireworks displayed from all over the world last night, I wished there were a way that we, as a human institution, could agree that each and every new year, all warring factions had to put away their arms, quit fighting, and spend one week at a table of diplomacy. If things couldn't be worked out in a week, okay back to war. I wonder what could be accomplished if there was a "week of diplomatic reckoning?")

So, "Faith is the easiest thing to fake." No argument to the contrary here. That is a foundation on which we can build isn't it?

When Pat Robertson for easy example says, "I spoke to God and God said elect Bush" there are at least three interesting possibilities:

1. Pat is an outright "faker."
2. And then there is the source of "knowledge" the Bible that is itself the work of "fakers."
3. It was Devil and not God so Pat got "faked."

The only thing we can say for sure is that Pat did not get his information from God. We can say the same thing about the Bible - we can be sure that was not God in the burning bush. And it follows that all other "God was there" of the Bible are also fake.

Did Devil fake Pat out? http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul says that the big money goes to those leading the multitudes to hell. All one need do is "fake faith" and then there's the matter of getting the multitudes to "buy" the fake. Not much in the way of a product or service at church, but there is something being sold alright. That's in spite of Jesus throwing the money changers out.

Just wondering. Is, "President of Chicago Theological Seminary" a good paying job? Like you said, "Faith is the easiest thing to fake." Even miracles can be "faked"?

Shouldn't we call on Jerry Lee Lewis to do a few bars of, "Whole Lot of Faking Going On" -- at church -- everywhere?

Susan,

Good essay, to the point. Although you did not say so outright, you implied, and I agree, that there is now a de facto religious test for candidates. This marks a sad day in America. What happened to what Jesus said in Matthew's Gospel - do not pray in public, like the hypocrites, but go to your room and pray to God in secret?

I remember what my mother said: Don't be pious, be reverent. Pious is shouting religion on the street corners; reverent is living one's religion or beliefs, and not shouting.

Susan, your tag line is "Voters think faith = trustworthiness. We shouldn't be so quick to generalize." The ironic thing, which I have made a point of observing on this blog, is that people "of faith" are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more likely to act in BAD FAITH in the service of their ideals. We especially see this in Christian fundamentalism, with its promotion of so-called intelligent design as science and its historical revisionism of the secular basis of this country, among other things.

As near as I can tell, the fact that religion is make-believe puts the believer in the strange predicament of having to be dishonest in order to serve "truth". Institutionally this has resulted in religious education designed to cloud the mind and erode the rational and moral faculties so that the believer can serve the belief without ever being fully aware of the absurdity of his position of the damage that has been done to his being. I think we have all seen this in spades in the repartee between the atheists and fundamentalists on this blog. The best of the fundamentalists respond to reason with poetic or heartfelt expressions of love and transcendence, but never actually address the issues raised by the atheists.

Susan,

The question asked about moral values and you didn't even answer it. The values a candidate espouses in word and action tell you how they would govern given a future situation or crisis. Therefore morals do matter.

I agree with Jihadist on piety being easy to fake.

Then, there's piety's poor cousin - righteous indignation. Reagan was a master of the public display of that one. As he didn't do church and didn't give a damn about his kids, the piety fake was out for him, so he used the next best gimmick available.

Happy New Year to all!

Susan Brooks:

I echo Jihadist's sentiments exactly.

And Jihadist, it's always a pleasure reading your posts too! Happy New Year to all.

Reverend,

I had always thought that "piety" is the easiest thing to fake in public. Seen, heard and read too much on the faux pious politicians.

Always a pleasure to read your essays.

Happy New Year to you.

Thank you and best regards

"J".

Right on, Susan.

You wrote: "Faith is the easiest thing to fake."

*************

"FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

- Ambrose Bierce's "Dictionary", written 1881 - 1906.

*************

"RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable."

- ibid.