article by Cecil Maranville
God is "getting a lot of press" lately as the presidential candidates have brought religion into the campaign. Is the U.S. undergoing a significant change? Or are we witnessing politics as usual?
Religion is big news in the U.S. presidential primary! So, are more U.S. citizens thinking of God? Not exactly. But they are hearing fiery campaign rhetoric about specific religions, religious leaders and political issues that are framed in religious terms.
Religion moved from a backdrop issue to center stage when the delegate selection contest for the presidential nomination moved into South Carolina, Michigan and Virginia in February. Senator John McCain lashed out at men he identified as leaders of "the religious right." Several sections of the country appeared poised to split into sectarian bickering in the primaries.
Last year, in a somewhat crass--albeit honest--declaration, senior policy adviser to Vice President Al Gore, Elaine Kamarck, told The Boston Globe, "The Democratic Party is going to take back God this time" ("Gore Includes Religion in Agenda," 1999, AP, emphasis added throughout). She was referring to her candidate's "religious strategy" in the 2000 presidential race.
While Mr. Gore's principal spokesman attempted to distance himself and his boss from such a blatantly political approach to religion ("I don't think God is partisan"), campaign speeches from all candidates ring with a variety of uncharacteristic references to religion.
Mr. Gore regularly refers to his "faith tradition." (Few people know that he actually studied at Vanderbilt's divinity school as a young man.) In stark contrast to typical Democratic Party tradition, Mr. Gore has called for "a new partnership between church and state."
The vice president opposes organized prayer in public schools during the school day and also opposes using public dollars to send children to parochial schools. What, then, has changed? What he appears to promise is an open ear to the influence of the religious lobby. "If you elect me president," he said before a Salvation Army audience, "the voices of faith-based organizations will be integral to the policy set forth in my administration."
"The moment has come," said Gore, "for Washington to catch up with a rest of America... Americans profoundly, rightly believe that politics and morality are deeply interrelated."
He is certainly right about the popularity of religion in the United States. According to a recent survey of nearly 6,000 Americans, religion plays an important part in the lives of a majority. "Quite simply, God is back," said Ira Matathia, CEO of the group that conducted the survey ("'Trendsetters' Turning to Religion" 1999, News America Digital Publishing, Inc.).
"Faith-based" is the phrase of choice
Throughout the primary season presidential candidates have openly referred to their personal faith and offered promises of support for "faith-based organizations"--the generic phrase most candidates as well as reporters seem to prefer.
From the beginning of his run for the presidency, Texas Governor George W. Bush has listed among his campaign goals: "Draw a moral line" and get "faith-based organizations" such as churches involved in easing social problems. Governor Bush has long been an advocate of school prayer and public funds for religious education. He makes no secret of his desire to garner the support of the so-called "religious right" in the presidential campaign. His success in securing this allegiance prompted Senator McCain to launch a sharp attack on the governor's character in order to secure the support of northern Catholics in what the media portrayed at the time as the beginning of a sectarian war. It appears that it was more of "a tug of war"--for delegates.
In the Democrats' nomination process, both former Senator Bill Bradley and Vice President Gore eagerly courted the endorsements of liberal ministers Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
"Election year religion" has spilled from the presidential campaign into a high-profile senatorial election in New York.
In early February, New York senatorial candidates Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani scrapped over religion, trading accusations about the other making religion an issue in their race, at the same time as both claim to be "people of faith." Mrs. Clinton is a former Sunday school teacher who was raised in a devout Methodist family. Mayor Giuliani supports Governor Bush's proposals to promote the work of faith-based charities [that phrase again] and says that teachers should be able to post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms.
Another presidential candidate--in the Russian presidential election--recently proclaimed religious roots! Vladimir Putin said that he had been secretly baptized during the years of Communist domination. His declaration was met with skepticism, and is thought to be an attempt to soften his somewhat harsh image as the former head of the KGB.
Some fear talk is sincere--others fear it is not
Not to diminish or impugn the sincerity of any of the presidential candidates, but all of the sudden open talk about religion in the context of the upcoming election sounds more like politics as usual than a resurgence of genuine "in God we trust." Does all this talk of "faith-based" things portend a significant change in the United States (or Russia)? Or will it live only as long as the campaign?
Associated Press writer Sandra Sobieraj offers a blunt analysis: "For Gore, the political benefit of religious talk is twofold: it sneaks some ground out from under Republicans who have long dominated the morals debate; and, less overtly, may serve to disassociate him from [President] Clinton's personal scandals" ("Gore Includes Religion in Agenda").
Such overt embracing of religion by politicians has shocked organizations that are dedicated to the separation of church and state. It is indeed confusing in a country that bans religion from its classrooms. Last summer, a New Jersey first grader made national headlines when his teacher, citing First Amendment concerns, wouldn't let him read a story from the Bible to his classmates. A legal battle is currently underway in northern California where the Oroville Union High School barred the valedictorian of the class of 1999 from mentioning God in his valedictory.
It is a well-publicized conundrum that survivors of violence-victimized Columbine High School flocked to neighborhood churches for consolation and comfort--at the same time that federal law mandates that public schools maintains a sharp separation between religion and education.
Dropping God's name to get elected
Has the nation made a 180-degree turn to the things of God? Will U.S. leaders actually lead the nation's citizenry, by example and by policy, to return to God? Time will tell. For the present, what all have said thus far is a continuation of "politically-correct-speak" voicing support for concepts that are known to have wide appeal with the electorate. That's done, of course, for the sake of winning votes.
This article is not intended to be either anti or pro any political candidate or party, for the United Church of God, which sponsors this magazine, is nonpolitical. Our interest is much deeper than sampling the voter appeal of religion. Turning to God is profoundly more than providing support for the social programs of "faith-based organizations." Quoting the God that many politicians seemingly want to publicly embrace, "What right have you to declare My statutes, or take My covenant in your mouth, seeing you hate instruction and cast My words behind you?" (Psalm 50:16-17 [16] But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?
[17] Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.
See All....) It is one thing to want to be photographed with God, so to speak, and quite another to actually do what God says.
Warning of the prevailing self-absorption of people of the last days of human history, the apostle Paul prophesied that societies would be dominated by men and women fettered by obvious indulgences. "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: for men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God..." (2 Timothy 3:1-4 [1] This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
[2] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
[3] Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
[4] Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
See All...).
Who could fail to see the shortcomings of such immoral character? How true are the cries of the candidates for a need to "reset America's moral compass," for its present compass setting is leading the country to certain shipwreck! Where are the leaders who are genuinely guided and live by godly principles instead of by the hedonistic forces listed in the above paragraph?
True faith is not a political issue
The above list of potential causes of corruption goes on to mention religion. Or, in keeping with the trends, maybe we should call it "faith-based corruption." Paul spoke of people motivated only by self-interest who have "...a form of godliness but denying its power" (2 Timothy 3:5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
See All...). The power of God is able to transform lives if people honestly learn what God expects of them, stop doing what God forbids and literally behave as He intends they should.
Unless or until leaders actually embrace the words of God, they only flirt with the illusion of morality. If talk of "faith-based" this or that is only politics as usual, it is cruel talk indeed--so much "faith-based baby kissing." If the campaign rhetoric produces nothing of substance, the speeches will be clouds without water in a moral drought. Rather than follow those who voice such talk, Paul advises "...from such people turn away!"
Eugene McCarthy once observed that only two kinds of religion are tolerated in Washington: "vague beliefs strongly affirmed and strong beliefs vaguely expressed" ("Finding God" by Kenneth Woodward and Martha Brant, Newsweek, February 7, 2000, page 1).
How far beyond the Washington beltway might this philosophy apply? When it comes to soliciting votes, we suspect it applies the world around.
Calling upon the name of God is not a political ploy to be manipulated as merely another in an endless list of strategies to secure one's election to office. It's for men and women who believe God and will live by His words, regardless of the popularity of those words with the masses.
Sources: The Christian Science Monitor; Nando Media; News America Digital Publishing, Inc.; AP; Agence France-Presse; Reuters; Electronic Telegraph; Newsweek.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment