Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Let's Keep Religion Away from the Ballot Box

By Larry Beinhart, AlterNet. Posted October 25, 2008.


It's wrong the way we line up the presidential candidates and cross-examine them about their faith.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Larry Beinhart

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The Constitution, Article VI, Section 3, states "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, said, "An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against."

Here's Theodore Roosevelt: "If there is one thing for which we stand in this country, it is for complete religious freedom, and it is an emphatic negation of this right to cross- examine a man on his religion before being willing to support him for office."

Yet we have now instituted such tests. We line up the presidential candidates and cross-examine them about their faith. They respond with Sunday school sagas about how they met God and pander to us with stories about how prayer will help them lead. How did this come about?

In 1979, four conservative activists, Paul Weyrich, Terry Dolan, Richard Viguerie (all Catholics) and Howard Phillips (a Jew who'd become an evangelical Christian) were looking for wedge issues to break up the Democratic Party. Right-wing economics and foreign policies had no popular appeal. So they came up with abortion, opposition to gay rights and (thinly disguised) racism, concerns that could be found clustered among religious conservatives. They recruited a minister, Jerry Falwell, funded him with corporate money and started the Moral Majority.

It succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. The Religious Right became the base of the Republican Party, and the GOP gained control of federal government for the first time since the Great Depression.

Democrats were slow to respond. But politics is a business of learning what voters want to hear and then finding sincere ways to say it. Now, they've joined the choir. Meanwhile, sincerely religious liberals who hate the way faith became identified with right-wing politics were politicized in response.

Is faith a good guide to how someone will perform in office? George W. Bush, a born again Christian, claimed that God contacted him and said, "George," (they're on a first-name basis) "invade Afghanistan." So he did.

Although George failed to apprehend Osama bin Laden, God was apparently delighted, called back and said, "George, liberate Iraq."

Bush had a lot of support in all of this. Many people felt that he had been chosen by God to lead America in this moment of crisis and told him so. Here we are, a trillion dollars later, missions not accomplished, our armed forces too used up to respond to a new threat and our nation on the verge of bankruptcy.

If we accept it as true that God chose George and gave him specific instructions, and then look at the results, we have to form a very poor judgment of God, indeed, both as a human resources administrator and as a military strategist. Or, we might say that faith is not a good guide to competence in office.

I liked Jimmy Carter. Many did not. They felt that he was too goody-goody and too slow to resort to force -- the very qualities that came out of his version of born again Christianity. American presidents of little or no faith include Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln (though he could use biblical language to great effect), John Adams and George Washington. Yes, George Washington.

Washington did go to church, five or 10 times a year. But when people tried to box him into making a religious stand, he deftly evaded them. He gave moral advice to his adopted children, but, so far as we know, never urged religion on them.

He wrote: "Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated.

So if you are judging candidates by their religious stands, perhaps we should look to the model of the old George, the one who kept whatever faith he had to himself, and be more than a little worried about the candidate who more closely resembles our George. The one who gets bad guidance from God.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: politics, religion, salvation boulevard

Larry Beinhart is the author of Wag the Dog, The Librarian and Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin. All are available at LarryBeinhart.com. His new novel is Salvation Boulevard (Nation Books). This column originally appeared in the Albany Times-Union.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
eerie comparisons
Posted by: endlessenigma on Oct 25, 2008 4:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the odd, or eerie comparisons one could make between the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Christian Republic of the United States, is that in both countries it is impossible to become president without the approval of the respective countries religious leaders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Church and State: Ingredients for Disaster
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Oct 26, 2008 12:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was the religious right's debut in 1980 as a major political force that made the Reagan presidency, with its disastrous economic consequences still reverberating, possible. The evangelicals tepidly supported GHW Bush and enthusiastically supported GW Bush and his agenda of radical upward wealth redistribution, massive deficit spending, deregulation, warmongering, war crimes, torture, war profiteering and fraud, silencing of scientists, refusal to act on environmental issues, unlawful spying on peaceful Americans, and other outrages possible.

Through their gullibility, greed, love of violence, contempt for the poor and disdain for environmental protection, the evangelicals have brought us misgovernance and catastrophes in every sphere.

It looks like their prayers for a McCain victory (and rapid demise?) will be answered with a resounding no. Thank God!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's the Jewish vote then?
Posted by: weathered on Oct 26, 2008 4:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MSM goes through contortions explaining how Jews vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Saviors come from strange religions!
Posted by: Karl.Ben on Oct 26, 2008 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems like the constitution doesn't mean much these days.. The person who probably was the most qualified to save this nation from the financial crises we are in was Romney - too bad he was a Mormon, that seemed to rub people the wrong way.

I wonder if those same people, whos savings are disappearing and are without a job still worry about the Mormon that could have saved them!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Spirituality v. Religion Posted by: weathered
If you Feel Inclined to tell me your 'Religion'
Posted by: Purple Girl on Oct 26, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YOU ARE LYING!
We don't measure a persons 'Goodness' from a label they claim to wear.We measure them on their ACTIONS!In fact I have grown far more leary of these 'Faithfuls' then anyone who practices Satan Worshipping! their intentions are far more Clear.An Atheist is also far more indicative of Fairness, then any of the Big 3!
These Three Heretical doctrines have been plaguing mankind for far too long, they have been running Death mataches nearly every century. With what we Know through History why do we not condemn them for their manical Rhetoric and War like doctrines.These Three have proven their heresy by continuing the Us vs Them ideology..Does that not essentially undermine 'Love thy neighbor'????all these Three have been doing for Millenia is Killing & Stealing to appease their own 'sacred Cows'- Is that not putting another Before God? Pure Unadulterated IDOLATRY!
I'm repulsed and revolted by those who come with Holy Book as Justification, as their Sword.
As a Recovered Catholic, I am suspecious of ANY Doctrine which Pits Me against others..I suggest these so called 'Religious Right' review their doctrines, and even the name they ahve given themselves and determine if it is not Blasphemy. 'Right' Means others Are 'Wrong' and Who are they To Judge? What kind of a 'Humble Servant of God' Claims such Rights?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wrong-word, right-wing politics were "politicized" in response? How about radicalized?
Posted by: Lauren on Oct 26, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
politicize |pəˈlitəˌsīz|

verb [ trans. ] [often as adj. ] ( politicized)
cause (an activity or event) to become political in character : art was becoming politicized | attempts to politicize America's curricula.

• make (someone) politically aware, esp. by persuading them of the truth of views considered radical : we successfully politicized a generation of women.
• [ intrans. ] engage in or talk about politics.

DERIVATIVES
politicization |pəˌlitəsiˈzā sh ən| noun

radicalize |ˈradikəˌlīz|

verb [ trans. ]
cause (someone) to become an advocate of radical political or social reform : I'm trying to mobilize and radicalize the liberals.

DERIVATIVES
radicalization |ˌradikəliˈzā sh ən| noun


Am I the only one with a problem with the near constant misuse of the word politicize?

It just doesn't make any sense to talk of politics being political. That is like air is airy or water is wet. It is not a conversation, it is just making noise. Very telling that it is a mainstay of the FAUX noise diet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Republican strategy
Posted by: Lauren on Oct 26, 2008 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, Senator. Let's Salvage What We Can.

David Frum makes some recommendations for his party,

2. We need a message change that frankly acknowledges that the Democrats are probably going to win the White House -- and that warns of the dangers of one-party, left-wing government. There's a lot of poll evidence that voters prefer divided government. By some estimates, perhaps as many as 8 percent of voters consciously cast strategic votes in favor of division. These are the voters we need to be talking to now.

Isn't it great to see Republicans are starting to argue FOR our third party inclusion?

It must be the new (political) age we are in. Let him argue for divided government, let us argue it should shift to a position that includes green perspectives in the conversation.

Why do we have to be bi-polar when we could be balanced?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's no stopping this trend....
Posted by: CatDad on Oct 26, 2008 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The GOP cannot win elections based upon theoretical ideas of their (discredited) "free market" fundamentalism...neither are there enough affluent people in the USA to give them the winning edge.

There will have to be some sort of pandering to the lower classes for them to gain/retain power....Right Wing politicians/figures who understand this concept and who can practically carry it out are rewarded with great power and/or money: Limbaugh, Tom DeLay, Sarah Palin, Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, Pat Robertson...the list goes on and on.

It is VASTLY more economical to get votes by pandering to religion....as opposed to actually PROMISING to do something that might actually benefit the voters...like offering universal health care. Screaming "Culture of Life" every election cycle costs nothing...slamming gays (while ignoring issues of heterosexual divorce/adultery) costs nothing...giving the vague hope of ending abortion costs nothing....In the end, "Values Voters" are an easily deceived and manipulated lot...The Right cynically refers to them as "low information" voters...contemptuously drawing attention to the fact that they rarely take the time to read about issues.

Unfortunately, Democrats seem to have bought into this too...as was evidenced by Obama supported "faith based" initiatives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the DEA makes it the agency to oversee the EAP?
Posted by: Lauren on Oct 26, 2008 1:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The EAP (Employee Assistance Plan) is under the DEA.

Now since the whole DEA thing is a religious jihad on the part of the religious right, the purpose of EAP becomes suspicious.

I thought EAP was a federal program, silly me. It is a private contractor affair. Oh boy, here we go again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whatever You Do, Larry...Don't Watch
Posted by: ranchero42 on Oct 29, 2008 7:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Elizabeth Dole attack ad Keith ran on "Countdown". On a side note I hear John McCain thinks the new Caliph will come from America, guess he heard it from that Palestinian dude he gave that half-million bucks to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement