A perfect example of this is the Wolf bill. The Wolf bill cleared the House of Representatives on the 15th of May 1998. The Christian Coalition pushed the bill and it was labeled a ‘freedom of religion’ bill. The bill is supposed to “automatically sanction nations that are guilty of a ‘pattern of religious persecution’. The problem with this bill is not so much the bill itself, but the realities that go with it. While religious persecution has been considered important enough, things like torture, public maiming, and government sponsored genocide and other more encompassing and human rights based infractions are ignored. The bill seeks only to protect those who are being persecuted for their religion. To further expand the bill out, and get an even better picture, one must realize that most countries have in fact been formed grounded on a religious belief and their entire body of law is based around this belief, and the majority of the population follows that belief. Now, for the purposes of perhaps finding a theory as to why the Christian Coalition is so concerned about only religious persecution in other countries, one can fast forward to the modern day crusades of the Christian church, or missions as they are now called. These missions have been successful at spreading Christianity throughout the world, and creating pockets of Christians in these countries based on other religious beliefs. This has in turn lead to the persecution of missionaries and congregations of western-based churches within said countries, say for example in a country that is Islamic. Suddenly the Wolf bill, pushed by the Christian Coalition, seems less like a bill designed to protect people in general from persecution, and instead protects missionaries and missions from the governments of the countries they have moved into to work their conversions.
It has been suggested that the American public is more open to hearing about religion, and God as a salve to the tarnishing of the moral high ground of the president’s office after the Clinton - Lewinsky scandal. While they may not in fact wish for a more Christian president, they do not wish to have their president once again be caught having an affair. That “Americans are looking for people with definition and conviction,”not necessarily for a candidate that is religious, “in the wake of the Clinton scandals, many voters express a vague desire for government policies with a moral component.”hile the Lewinsky scandal was not a rarity in American culture, as divorce rates in the United States are around 50%, and it is in no way uncommon for infidelity to occur in American culture. The voters do not, however, want it to occur within the oval office as the president is supposed to be the ideal American, and Americans don’t necessarily like to acknowledge that the average American is very likely to participate in infidelity.
When you actually take a look at individual platform and policy, it is possible to see how religion has in fact actually entered politics. A particularly good example of this can be found simply by looking at George W. Bush’s campaign website, and looking at some of the more morally controversial issues. You can’t ask for a better one then Bush’s ‘Abstinence Education: “The Right Choice”’ in this little section you can find a great deal of the undertones of the religious right. For example the condition of having a child out of wedlock is seen as a negative statistic under Bush’s rundown. The facts presented under the heading ‘Heath Costs of Teen Childbearing’ should actually be relabeled ‘The risks of having sex.’ As all of the statistics have to do with STD’s and infectious diseases, and not a single point deals specifically with pregnant teen mothers. The section on abstinence education and who should get funding for it, gives us even more little nuggets of the morality of the religious right. By including the following sentence sounds much more like a lecture that one would hear at a church youth retreat, rather then as a government position.
“ They teach abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children, and that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems.”
The most significant aspect about this passage is not so much what it is saying up front, but the message within that message. It becomes clear that the position of the Bush campaign is that the married two-parent family that includes a mother and a father is the only family that is considered a positive family. A morality that can be directly traced back to the religious teachings of the right oriented churches. Ergo, under the Bush philosophy, it can be inferred that a single woman who chooses to have a baby out of wedlock falls into the negative statistic column. This, and many other examples just go to show you that the idea that religion and politics have been separate is, in fact, not the case.
Another theory as to why religion has become a much less taboo subject is because in fact fewer Americans are as religious. As the public has become less religious it doesn’t mean as much that they have come to believe in a God any less, it simply means that they are not as divided along religious lines to the extent that the American public has been divided along religious lines in the past. Another interesting fact to this slide is, “at their convention in Philadelphia, the Republicans spoke less in the vocabulary of faith than they did from 1984 to 1996.”This is significant in the fact that the religious leanings of the party have, in fact, been lessened when it comes to some of their policy issues.
Another interesting possible side is the pervasiveness, in the mention of religion and of God in American politics, does in fact have very little to do with how an American citizen will vote. As both candidates are invoking the name of God in an attempt to seem moral, it is entirely possible that they have negated the factor of voting for whomever follows God by both claiming to do so. Ergo a voter can now vote for either of the two leaders and still believe that they are voting for a God fearing candidate. The simple mention of religion would not affect how an informed voter would make their choice. They would pay more attention to a party’s policy, and decide whether or not the policies and platform of the candidates follow their particular beliefs. As the fact that both of them claim to operate within the same good Christian moral ground, abdicates a voters need to have the requirements of their faith fulfilled.
All of these theories however still are based on the assumption that people who claim to be religious do in fact follow their religious beliefs in all aspects of their lives. This, however, would lead to a more right leaning electorate then we in fact see, as more than 50% of the American public sees themselves as religious in a manor that follows the major Christian religions. We should see the principals of these religions more closely reflected in the parties that these groups follow, and in the day-to-day actions of these groups. In order to fully understand why this is not so much the case another theory arises.
A term used widely within organised religious groups is the term ‘Sunday Christian.’ Sunday Christians are ‘Christians’ that predominantly practice what the church preaches on Sunday, while they are at church. People compartmentalise their lives, such that on Sunday they go to the parish or church that they are a part of, and in a sense pay their dues. However, when they leave the church, there is little that would really tell a family of ‘Sunday Christians’ from your average secular family. Take for example the grantedly anecdotal evidence of the following two families. The Campbell family whom were friends of mine while I was in high school, and the Dyer family that I came to know while I was in my second year of University. Now the Campbell family are sworn Catholics, who participate in mass every Sunday and then go about their regular lives during the rest of the week. Now the children of the family, while all swearing to be devout Catholics, see no problem with having sex before marriage, as they have all engaged in it. They consider it, at the most, only their duty to perhaps confess it when they go to mass on Sunday, thus confessing, and being free to continue to do so, if they so desire. Another interesting fact to this real life family is that they do refer to the service they go to as; “drive through mass” based on the fact that it is only a 20 minute long service, and they are “in and out in half an hour.” The mother of the family runs a modelling agency, which deals in the sale of image and look, two things that do not fit into the teachings of Catholic church, as the sale of beauty, which is at the fundamental level all that a modelling agency is, doesn’t follow the precepts of the Catholic church, most notably the concepts of humility and piety. This does not, however, affect or cause any conflicts within the faith of this particular family, illustrating how belief and practice are not as closely linked in society as many think.
To further illustrate this theory, lets take the second example of the Dyer family. The Dyer family consists of Susan, and Morris, in the case of this family it is only the father, Morris, who considers himself Catholic, while Susan, has avowedly only become Catholic in title to satisfy the concerns of the families involved. Morris, considering himself a full Catholic to the extent that he has made statements that the actions of Susan’s children and sex and the practice of it before marriage. The significant fact here is that while Morris is a devout Catholic and makes statements about the negativity of sex before marriage, the fact is that Morris and Susan were having extra marital sex for two years prior to their marriage, and before the dissolution of Morris’ previous marriage by the Catholic Church. This illustrates once again, that belief and practice are not always as closely linked as suggested by the statistics that a poll on religion and religious belief would suggest. In the case of Morris in filling out a survey, he would state that he was against sex outside of marriage, and for traditional family values, while in fact practicing a way of life that is decidedly secular and outside the allowances of his religion.
These families, are both, typical suburban families and would fill all statistical surveys in as being Catholic, and in their own minds consider themselves to be fully Catholic, and practicing Catholics. However, this ideal does not necessarily affect their life decisions, and their day-to-day view on morality. So what we have in fact is a percentage of the population, assuming that there are more families out there like this, that would show up as being religious, while following the morals of a secular much more left wing non religious society. Thus causing an anomaly if someone were to poll them on their religious beliefs and then attempt to make assumptions as to the way that those religious beliefs would lead them to act.
It is this theory that has lead to the conclusion as to why the public is more comfortable with hearing the name of God invoked within the political arena. The invoking of the name of God follows the pattern of these ‘Sunday Christians’ by paying service to the deity that they believe in, while the practices of the two parties do not follow the actual religious practices or ideals that their constituents purport to believe in. This is why it is possible for Bush to say that the philosopher who influenced him most is Christ, while also supporting the death penalty, something that Jesus made clear as not being an option, when he stepped in and prevented the stoning of the prostitute outside the temple. Or, perhaps Bush would have a hard time explaining how the republican position against gun control fits into the philosophy of Jesus. While the pro-choice and pro-abortion stance of the democrats decidedly does fit into the teachings of the sanctity of life, as they are outlined in the New Testament. Personal religious belief and religious practice aside, when one really takes a critical look at both of the parties, the morality that is required by both God and the Church simply is not there and this fact would be clear to any actually practicing Christian. Thus what should in fact be suggested as one of the major reasons for why it is ok to invoke God’s name in all its forms, is the fact that it is, in reality only lip service, to the same extent of the lip service of musicians thanking God in their acceptance speeches. When it comes to the electing of officials, it is the policy and actions of the two parties that people will judge when it comes to their electoral vote. The invoking of the name of God by the politicians is no different then the practices of ‘Sunday Christians.’ They will statistically fall into the category of religious, but practically fall into the category of secular non-believers, who make their decisions based on what serves their needs best, as opposed to what serves their God.
Bibliography & References
Barone, Michael. “Religion on the left, religion on the right Why is 'God talk' becoming a campaign staple?” U.S. News & World Report,Washington; Aug 21, 2000. Vol. 129, No. 7. Start Page: 21
Goodman, Walter. “God and Politics: Nothing New Under the American Sun” New York Times. September 10, 2000. Section 4. Start page 4. New York. Eastern Addition.
Kirk, Russell. “The First Amendment and Religious Belief” The Catholic World April 1958. EWTN Online services. Manassas, VA. .
Niebuhr, Gustav. “God and Man and the Presidency” New York Times. Sunday December 19, 1999. Section 4. Start Page 5. New York. Eastern Addition.
Novak, Michael. “Faith in search of votes” New York Times OP-Ed. Sunday, December 19, 1999. Section 4. Start page 13. New York, Eastern Addition.
Will, George, “Americans Focusing on Spiritual Assets” The Plain Dealer, Jun 2, 2000, Start Page 11B, Cleveland, Ohio.
Williams, Rhys H. “Visions of the good society and the religious roots of American political culture” Sociology of Religion; Washington; Spring 1999, Volume 60, Issue 1, Start page 1.
Witham, Larry. “God and country,” Insight on the News, Oct 2-Oct 9, 2000, Washington, Volume 16, Issue: 37, Start Page 30.
Wolfe, Alan. “What scholarship reveals about politics and religion” The Chronicle of Higher Education; Washington; Sep 8, 2000; Volume 47, Issue 2, Start page B7.
Woodward, Calvin. “Debate Intensifies Over Religion In Politics” The Plain Dealer, Aug 30, 2000, Start Page 14A, Cleveland, Ohio.
“The Wolfe Bill” New York Times Editorial Attributed to the Editors. New York Times Friday, May 15th 1998 - New York.
Barone.
Constitution of the United States of America.
Russell.
Novak.
Niebuhr.
Barone
Ibid.
