What In The Name Of God Is Going On With American Politics?
Politicians have been invoking the name of God since forever, but in an era when a substantial portion of the Republican base is hard-core Christianist — true believers who openly disparage Islam and other faiths — the practice has become particularly tiresome. And troublesome when you consider the number of homegrown incidents in which Christianists have backed up their beliefs with deadly firearm attacks.
This is not to say that John Boehner or Michele Bachmann, to name two especially egregious name droppers when it comes to the Almighty, are about to lock and load. But there is a connection between faith-based violence and some of the religious flapdoodle that spills from the mouths of Republicans in torrents these days. And I’ll be damned if I can think of a single incident in which an adherent of a more egalitarian faith shot up a church or an abortion clinic because God told him to do so.
Don’t get me wrong. I’ve given up on the separation between church and state as a practical matter. Besides which, religion informs our view of human life for many of us and there is no reason why it shouldn’t seep into politics.
I don’t take issue with politicians falling back on their religion when it has context. But much if not most of such talk is as shallow as the politics are conservative, and invoking the Almighty’s name when the subject is the federal debt ceiling is beyond tiresome.
Then there is the role of religion in subjugating the rights of women. Here again Republican politicians, or a goodly number of them anyway, justify workplace discrimination and deny women access to reproductive care because that’s how they read their Bible.
There is a widely held view that all that is great about America is grounded in God. It is not. Not by a long shot, nor is that what the Founding Fathers believed.
When Thomas Jefferson spoke of “inalienable rights,” he was not affirming God but denying King George. Jefferson, in fact, was a deist who rejected the claim of the divinity of Jesus although he kept a Bible close at hand. It was not an oversight that the word “God” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. And when Abraham Lincoln minted the phrase “In God We Trust,” it was for the consumption of others; he himself was determinedly irreligious.
It has been 50 years since Americans elected the first Roman Catholic president, yet religion looms large for Mitt Romney’s campaign.
There is an old saying that Americans are suspicious of any religion other than their own, and Romney has the handicap of being a Mormon, a widely misunderstood denomination outside of the American spiritual mainstream that some religions consider to be a cult despite, perhaps ironically, it’s deep commitment to family values.
How outside?
While nearly half of Republican voters have identified themselves as evangelicals in recent primary exit polls and they make up a highly influential part of the GOP base, a mere 20 percent have indicated support for Romney, who at this point would seem to be the only candidate with even a slim chance of beating President Obama.
It should be understood that evangelicals don’t necessarily not support Romney because of his faith. He is a notorious flip-flopper and will have to do more than assemble a crack campaign team and raise buckets of money, both of which he has done, to survive the Republican primaries.
But it nevertheless is a shame — and shaming — that while the Constitution stipulates that there be no religious test for public office and it is my belief that a candidate’s private beliefs should be off-limits, Romney will be dogged by his beliefs every day from here on out by Republicans — officeholders and rank-and-file alike — who believe there is only one God. Their own.
27 Responses to “What In The Name Of God Is Going On With American Politics?”
It is not in the name of God that the haters of the world speak. In the United States, they have two objectives, a facist America and get rid of the black guy in the White House.
As one who has first-hand experience of how some Conservatives use the name of God to demonize fellow human beings for their sexuality,I agree with the sentiments you express, Shaun.
[...] The Moderate Voice [...]
I don’t think any subject brings out the word, “hypocrisy” more often then discussions about the confluence of politics and religion – or even the confluence of behavior and religion for that matter. The founders were well aware of the inherent pitfalls of a government too closely allied with any religion. In this way, thier 18th century sensibilities were leaps and bounds ahead of their 21st century contemporaries. It should be noted that (out of respect for our founders) I use the word, “contemporaries” very loosely.
Here’s what I find troublesome about the religion/government connection:
Religion, especially the hyper-religious, operate not on facts but on dogma. There is no evidence that homosexuality is the cause of any problem (societal, personal, or otherwise), but it is prohibited in most world religions and the hyper-religious line up to condemn it. That’s dogma vs. fact. There are other cases as well, like dress codes, diets, and other things that aren’t based on any fact that X or Y is bad, but simply on dogma (God says it’s bad, Mohammed wrote it’s bad, etc.).
The problem is the hyper-religious believe in dogma before they ‘believe’ in fact, or science, or data, or evidence. And the real problem is this carries on into real life, including politics.
Hence we have movements based on dogmatic notions that have little basis in reality, or movements that fight change based on scientific realities. The hyper-religious, being a dogmatic bunch, are easily swayed by dogma outside their religion as well.
When we have people in high office who are incapable of looking at the facts, weighing the evidence, listening to other viewpoints, and coming up with the solutions that solve the most problems while causing the least harm, we fail.
The only way we will have freedom OF religion is if we have freedom FROM religion.
People of all faiths, and no faith, should support freedom from religion in American politics. Otherwise, we’re leaning toward the flavor of a theocracy, and I don’t think most of us really want to live that way.
Religion has more to do with how you behave, not how they behave.
However if you believe through the tenets of you faith, or, otherwise, that a certain behavior is immoral, then you should be free to publicly state so, and, you are indeed free to publicly state so.
I do consider religion when I vote. Each elected to Congress or Executive office have their religion listed in their bio. This is specifically for the voter’s reference should the voter believe it important.
Agreed, Allen. One is always free to publicly state one’s opinions based on one’s morality or religion, but not to discriminate, legislate, take away a person’s rights and freedoms, even subjugate (and in some places kill) other human beings because of such religious or moral opinions.
[shrug] The most interesting take on religion and government I heard was from my Lebanese friend in the 1980s who had fled the civil war there — Jerry Falwell (the Moral Majority) scared the hell out of him. He said that the Middle East should teach everyone, “Keep religion out of the government!”
And he wasn’t a typical liberal who’s bigoted toward Christians.
“And he wasn’t a typical liberal who’s bigoted toward Christians.”
Such keen insight into the workings of “typical liberals”!
Of course I can only speak for myself, but my bigotry is toward hypocrites, not Christians. In fact my own upbringing was in a very Christian home, which went a long way toward informing the values I have today. Shocking no?
Has DLS ever posted anything that didn’t include a slam on liberals? I wonder if he dreams of liberals in his sleep or something…
There was no comma in my sentence you’re mis-reacting to.
Barky wondered:
Certainly, when I’m slamming the GOP or conservatives instead — an equitable observer and treater, unlike so many on here who just want to bash the Right incessantly, exhibit hatred, and so on.
I don’t regret shoving back once in a while against the Big Lean,
http://www.jonco48.com/blog/ship_20list.jpg
even though the result is more poor behavior by lefties on here, failure to comprehend what should be easy to comprehend, etc..
DORIAN DE WIND-
What on earth are you talking about? Subjugation, Kill? Take away rights?
DLS, you aren’t the only person on this blog who has trouble differentiating between “hatred”, and the simple act of being called out for being wrong.
Btw, I liked your ship photo.
“What on earth are you talking about? Subjugation, Kill? Take away rights?”
Gays killed and subjugated in Uganda, Kenya, Algeria, Egypt, etc., etc.
Gays’ rights: USA
Added: “Tenets of their faith”
I don’t have any such trouble. Perhaps you do, sir.
DORIAN DE WIND
Uganda, Kenya, and, Tanzania have nothing to do with God in U.S. Politics.
Nor does “Gay” rights.
If the people within this country decide to vote based upon their religious belief, there is nothing you or anybody else can do about it. Oh will you ever be able too.
How a person votes, and, that persons motivation for voting a certain way, is absolutely nobody’s business.
Allen, just to review:
You said
“Religion has more to do with how you behave, not how they behave.
However if you believe through the tenets of you faith, or, otherwise, that a certain behavior is immoral, then you should be free to publicly state so, and, you are indeed free to publicly state so.”
I agreed with you that “ One is always free to publicly state one’s opinions based on one’s morality or religion, but not to discriminate, legislate, take away a person’s rights and freedoms, even subjugate (and in some places kill) other human beings because of such religious or moral opinions.”
( I , perhaps erroneously assumed that you were speaking in general terms about religion and morality)
Then you said:
“What on earth are you talking about? Subjugation, Kill? Take away rights?”
And I reiterated that human beings—such as gays—are discriminated, legislated against, have their rights taken away, even subjugated and killed for religious or moral reasons.
I gave examples:
“Gays killed and subjugated in Uganda, Kenya, Algeria, Egypt, etc., etc.
Gays’ rights: USA”
Since it appears you were strictly referring to the USA, I could have added that gays have been murdered even in our own USA by those who misuse their religion or morality.
That’s all I have been trying to say, Allen, since sometimes one’s public statements of hate and bigotry towards others (NOT you, or anyone here) wrongly based on religion or morality, have had tragic consequences.
If I totally went off-topic, I apologize to you and others.
Thanks
DE WIND-
Let me clarify my point. Since you brought up “gay” rights, you should realize that any so called “right” being achieved today within some states and indeed as a policy within the military, can be reversed. They are not part of the first ten articles of the Constitution. Therefore not part of the Bill of Rights and therefore NOT permanent rights according to Constitutional law.
Where they are “allowed” they are “currently allowed”. These laws and policies can be reversed. Just like Roe vs. Wade, just like the voting age, ect..
Mind you, my support or non support for these issues is completely irrelevant.
Dorian, I applaud you for your patience and the consideration with which you always comport yourself at TMV. You are a role model in that respect. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.
JS: Thanks (could not find the “blush” emotion symbol)
@ Allen
Thanks for the Constitutional lesson.
I was erroneously basing my views and comments on common tolerance and justice and on that little paragraph of an obscure document that carries no legal weight—but a hell of a lot moral weight:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Have a great day
“These laws and policies can be reversed. Just like Roe vs. Wade, just like the voting age, ect..”
Just for clarification, the voting age is Constitutional. 26th amendment: “That right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied…”
tidbits-
Amendments can be repealed.
DORIAN DE WIND-
Yes they are magnificent words, but they were specifically kept of the Constitution by the framers.
All men are indeed endowed with inalienable rights by their creator. They are also endowed with obeying the creator‘s law. Should they believe in a creator at all. If not, then both rights an law become a moot point.
You have a nice day too!
[...] What In The Name Of God Is Going On With American Politics? (themoderatevoice.com) [...]