Democrats and Relgion Go Hand In Hand?

In a recent post made by Stephen Mack entitled, “Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual,” he outwardly argues that, “If there’s any truth to the old adage that religion and (liberal, democratic) politics don’t mix; it isn’t because they are polar opposites—an ideological oil reacting against a metaphysical water. Rather, it’s because they are, more or less, alienated kindred vying for the same space in the human imagination.” I must say, Mack does make a really good point. Since my background centers on International Relations, there is a very fine line when it comes to differentiating between religion and politics. After all, the history of the United States all started in 1630 when according to Mack, “a prosperous lawyer by the name of John Winthrop and a band of English Puritans left the security of their English homes, migrated to the new American wilderness. There they launched one of the most daring experiments in Christian civil government the old world had ever seen.” The foundations of principles and morality essentially began with religion and implementing these fundamentals into law and order is what sparked the American way of life. It is true that these pioneers established the importance of separating church and state, but difference between religion and politics has constantly been a controversial topic; even till this day. It is different in the sense that the separation of church and state entails keeping government and religious institutions independent of one another, while religion and politics is not as easily distinguishable.

I guess the big debate here is that since government and religious institutions can not be one in the same, is it acceptable for politicians to use religion as grounds for campaigning? Mack comments on this debate state that:

What these liberals are saying is that the Christian Right sees politics through the prism of theology, and there’s something dangerous in that. And they’re right. It’s fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them—as much as possible—in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise you can’t persuade other people, and they can’t persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can’t be theological.

Nevertheless, politicians competing for the upper hand in the upcoming 2008 Presidential Election have taken particular interest in the issue; hoping to gain the support of the undoubted religious.

In a recent CNN article entitled, “Obama: GOP doesn’t own faith issue,” writer Peter Hamby comments on Senator Barack Obama’s campaign message to a multiracial evangelical congregation in traditionally conservative Greenville, South Carolina. Obama acknowledged in his speech that, “[He thinks] it's important, particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party, to not cede values and faith to any one party. At least in politics, the perception was that the Democrats were fearful of talking about faith, and on the other hand you had the Republicans who had a particular brand of faith that oftentimes seemed intolerant or pushed people away.” It seems the Democratic candidates’ recent efforts in South Carolina are to reach out to Christian voters. And what better way than to comment on the most important issue to such an audience: religion. However, Obama’s attempts to reach out to a crowd of “church-going Republican primary voters” as Hamby put it, shows that religion is a controversial campaign issue, especially within the United States. Similar efforts by politicians beg the question as to how far some will go to get their votes. Yet, Obama’s speech in Greenville, I must say, was especially well designed. He never delved into religiously controversial issues but instead tip-toed around the general idea. I mean when you’re applauding evangelical leaders such as T.D. Jakes and Rick Warren for beginning to discuss social justice issues like AIDS and poverty in ways evangelicals have never done, and making statements like, “We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth,” it’s quite apparent to see what the main objective; to gain support.

Therefore, I believe that as long as politics are involved religious insight is not too far behind. I guess it’s because religion is an aspect of life that people can always resort to. But in a nation where religious freedom is embraced, using such issues to gain political support creates the foundation for debate. Politicians can not rely too heavily on such grounds because every person in the U.S. does not practice the same religion; resulting in conflicting views on particular key issues. The Democratic approach seems to have achieved a happy medium when it comes to religion, not that I’m stating my political position, by giving credit to the spiritual for their current views on key campaign issues. However, religion and politics remains to be a particularly sticky concern.