Faith and Public Discourse: A Dispassionate Point of View

The lifeline of Mitt Romney’s campaign was given this past Thursday. The speech was targeted to a specific audience to alleviate concerns about his religion and the role it would play in his administration, surely more pressing than terrorism, economic fears and the effects of free trade and globalisation. Like it or hate it, the speech touched on an issue that burns so deep in America that it can threaten to split the country apart and in an ideal world, is needlessly unnecessary.

The question that Mr. Romney tried to address, and that JFK did address, runs deep thru the veins of our own history. What is the proper role of faith and religion in political discourse in America? Should America establish an official religion? Should public discourse be void of any religious overtones or should it play a part in public discourse? Should candidates for public office incorporate their theology in the decisions they make for the common good? Should candidates be automatically disqualified if their faith is not part of mainstream religion?

On a fall day in September of 1984, New York Governor Mario Cuomo gave what many consider to be the clearest answers to many of the most complex questions on this issue and a path for future pubic officials to follow. He said that non-Christians and thinking Christians should be afraid when religion is so trivialized as to suggest that God favors one political party over another and acts as a “celestial party chairman.” The core of his argument tells us that while public officials may beholden themselves to the teachings of their faith, they should not be enjoined from taking political positions that differ from their faith.

Fast forward 23 years and the differences are stark in comparison. During the previous election, the Catholic Church issued voter guides in order to advocate that devoted Catholics cannot vote for candidates whose political positions conflict with Church teachings. They enforced this doctrine by refusing to grant communion to politicians whose political positions differ from those of the Church, although their personal positions may not. Evangelical Christians are equally adamant that candidates must share their beliefs, although not necessarily their values. The messages are clear – vote for candidates that share the values of church doctrine or suffer the pain of sin. But is their approach to politics, policy and morality appropriate? More importantly, is it respectful of everyone’s beliefs, Christian’s and non-Christians?

No one who has ever engaged in this debate would say that America isn’t a religious nation. The founding of our nation was based on Christian values, but the founders also recognized that there’s wasn’t the only faith. The founders remembered the people like those on the Mayflower who came to this country in order to escape the persecution that their own faiths were subjected to. When they established the framework of our government, they didn’t separate religion from the public, but instead made it so that religious doctrine wasn’t binding on the government.

I agree that there is a place for faith and religion in the public and political discourse. I also believe that public displays of faith should be allowed, but be tempered so as to respect the rights and beliefs of non-Christians. Shouldn’t the Christmas trees in Downtown Crossing, Copley Square, and Government Center have next to it a menorah?

Christians make up 94% of the religions represented by this country. But don’t we owe it to ourselves to allow the remaining 6% to recognize and celebrate their faiths as Christians are permitted? It’s ironic that the only secular holiday on the list of federally recognized holidays is Christmas. Despite ongoing efforts to change Christmas, most Christians including myself continue to wish people a Merry Christmas and those of the non-Christian faith, a happy holiday. In addition, we also get a mandatory day off from work and a marketing season tailored to this holiday. But shouldn’t my Buddhist friend have the same expectations as I do when he celebrates the Awakening of the Buddha like I celebrate the birth of Christ?

While the Establishment Clause prohibits us from recognizing any one religion as our national one, efforts have been underway for 40 years to undermine the very freedom we all rely on to ensure that while my faith cannot impose itself on other faiths, neither can other faiths impose themselves on my faith. Although Ronald Reagan is said to be the hero of the conservative Christians, it wasn’t until George W. Bush that we saw a leader who let his faith influence public policy decisions in a brazen and confrontational way. Although his leadership continues to disappoint many religious conservatives, I argue that they view his election and their role in it to suggest that a candidate can be subjected to a religious test and still be elected. Mr. Romney’s problem is compounded by the fact that people of his religion make up 1/150th of a percent of the population, a pale comparison to the evangelical Christians who make up 25% or more of the religious right.

No matter how much my non-Christian friends disagree with a policy that forgets to recognize their religion the same way Christians recognize theirs, I have never heard them complain about Christmas and the rather ridiculous controversy that has erupted in recent years about it. I think that they accept the fact that America is predominantly a Christian nation, but neither do they want a leader who will brazenly choose to imprint the teachings of his faith, on policies that affect everyone who is not of his faith.

The chances are high that everyone in this nation has at least one friend who is not a Christian. I urge everyone to embrace the golden rule and do unto others as they would do unto you. Be respectful of your Hindu, Asian, Jewish and other non-Christian beliefs. It’s also worth noting that at some point in everyone’s life, we have had to look up to which ever deity or higher being we believe in, in order to seek guidance and reassurance of our actions. How can we not expect our public officials to do the same?

I don’t know what the vast majority of people think about the intersection of faith and the public square in America, but I for one am tired of ministers, pastors, and bishops using their pulpits and their religious authority to influence elections. Voters have enough to worry about without having to wonder if they’ll suffer religious indignation in the eyes of their church leader. I’m tired of seeing Catholic Bishops refuse communion to John Kerry, Rudy Giuliani and other Catholic politicians because their public positions differ from their salvific responsibilities as Catholics when others commit sins that are not made public, yet receive communion anyway. Lastly, I’m tired of seeing public officials being judged by their religion rather than their stance on issues.

Certainly we can all agree that the debate about the role that faith should play in our public discourse should and needs to take place. But focusing on how a Mormon, whose values easily reconcile with other faiths, is Brittney-esque in how much attention it should actually be paid. Our religion should drive how we live our everyday lives, but shouldn’t be the determining qualification for any public official. In the end, there are more burning issues that America needs to address including the role of faith and religion in American public discourse. We need to ask questions such as how am I going to save for retirement, rather than what’s his religion? We need to solve the healthcare crisis that threatens to hobble this country, rather than debate silly issues like whether we should say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays. We need to figure out how to rid the world of terrorism, rather than impose religious doctrine and principles on those who don’t share the same beliefs.

Perhaps, with the Screenwriters strike and nothing new to watch on television, people will take up Shrader’s suggestion and gather in coffee houses, homes, parks and other settings to finally discuss what role we want religion to play in our politics.

---

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.

Political Grind | Powered by WordPress | ElegantBlue is a custom theme by Nathan Rice