Two themes of Bush's campaign's were specifically created to bring out the evangelicals. One was the theme of the prodigal son, for whom there "will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent." Thus, Bush, who until he was 40 was a mean drunk, could run on the second theme "restoring honor to the White House, implicitly arguing that the an Clinton chose partly because of his Eagle scout clean reputation couldn't.
Religion has played subtle roles in all elections, but it seems more that candidates use "religion" or the group identity that comes with it rather than having a strong preference for a candidate whose religion really informs their actions. There is no rational way to see Reagan as more religious than Jimmy Carter. Yet, Reagan was able to convey the image to many that he was a good man rooted in the values they ascribe to.
Even speaking just with Christianity, there are many branches - all calling the Bible their source - that prescribe very different ways of acting. In many cases, people can only see or appreciate things framed from the perspective of the branch they are in. One way to see this is to look at 2004, though 2008 works too.
From my perspective, Kerry's life shows someone, who even as a young man, was concerned with morality - which was a reason behind his speaking out in 1971. Also from my perspective, Bush's "rebirth" seemed more political than real.
To me, many of Kerry's comments on anything that helped the poor and his votes in the Senate were those of a social justice Catholic and sounded like what we heard at two Jesuit colleges we visited in summer 2004 because my high school daughter had the on her list. As a liberal Jew, these values resonated and were very similar to values of "tikkun Olam" (literally repair of the earth.) In 2006, Kerry gave a speech on how religion informs his political actions. (
http://www.pepperdine.edu/pr/releases/2006/september/kerry.htm ) Clearly he is a thoughtful man, who has seriously thought about religion. Bush's use of evangelical language could well have been Greek to me.
While I did not and do not think it important that a candidate is religious, in fact, I did just what most evangelicals did - only in the reverse way. They accepted Bush because he spoke their language - while I was very skeptical. I accepted that Kerry's values were what he expressed because they matched my own values, while they failed to see him as religious or a good person.
My daughter wrote me this perspective on Bush, Kerry and Obama - speaking of how they all three were voices of three different religious streams. To put it in context, it was in response to my sending her a link with a speech Kerry gave at Yale on interfaith dialogue. She was then getting her BA degree in world religions.
It's interesting to me how the current president, Kerry, and Obama all
have such easily traceable theological "accents," more so than most
public figures. Not only this, but they are important voices, each with
more resonance in our society than most people probably know: the voices
of conservative socially-minded evangelicalism, post-Vatican II
Jesuit-inspired Catholicism, and Protestant liberation theology. What's
also so interesting is that these are conscious tendencies on the part
of all three of the aforementioned figures. They aren't unknowingly and
uncaringly using the religious language with which they have become
accustomed (which can be said of many politicans); they have consciously
thought over their religious alliances and influences and are plainly
disclosing them to anyone "with ears to hear."
The clearest example of this is Obama. As a Religious Studies major,
what bothers me most about the treatment of Obama in the press vis-à-vis
Obama's religious beliefs is how off-base it is. With all of the hoopla
over Rev. Wright and Obama's Muslim connections, people are forgetting
that Obama is in actuality a convert to Christianity, an adult convert
whose theology is therefore of necessity conscious and genuinely felt.
Describing his first visit to Trinity, he wrote: "And in that single
note-- hope!-- I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside
the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of
ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath,
Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of
dry bones. Those stories-- of survival, and freedom, and hope-- became
our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears
our tears." The scriptural emphasis, the connection of the African
American story with the story of the early Israelites and the later
Christian minority in Rome, a conversion based on a belief in
liberation-- all of these things 'mark' Obama religiously and show what
is really unique about his faith in American politics. For him, religion
is not synonymous with solid upbringing and stability; it is a powerful
force against corruption and injustice. Obama, I would surmise, is fond
of the more powerful rhetoric in Paul's letters, and one can imagine
that much of his vision of Christianity has been derived from Paul's
dramatic statements: "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but
against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the
darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the
heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may
be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the
breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the
preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of
faith" (Ephesians 6:10-16). I would classify Obama as coming out of a
definite tradition of liberal Protestant theology, and could probably
even guess at which theologians he respects the most.
Kerry, on the other hand, comes out of a different tradition--
left-leaning Catholic theology. You can clearly see the influence Jesuit
theology has had on him every time he speaks about religion-- just
compare it to anything you can find on the Holy Cross website about God
or justice or the purpose of education. He is more likely to rely on the
Thomist conception of the "common good" or the Vatican II councils than
on the fiery scriptural references of Obama. He also has clearly been
influenced by the Catholic (also generally Thomist) conception of
"natural law" (vaguely equivalent to the conception of Noahide laws in
Jewish tradition), which is the belief that, all creatures coming from
the same Creator, there is some "natural" (as opposed to the grace given
through revelation) understanding of what is good and just in all
people, though there are real differences given through revelation.
Traditionally, this would mean that there is good in all faiths, but it
is imperfect compared to faith in Christ. Kerry seems to have his own
interpretation of "natural law", however (and I wouldn't be surprised if
he also got this from some Jesuit friends)-- that the natural law exists
for all people, but different belief systems (perhaps not even
necessarily religious) build on this and each has something to offer the
others, all ultimately based in the shared sense of what is good and
right present in all people. And so most of his speech has to do with
this-- what the different religions can offer each other.
I liked his honesty about "not knowing enough about Islam" and his
assertion that "if you don't engage, you can't even find answers to the
most basic, fundamental questions: Why do you wear the hijab? Why do you
go to Mecca? What is jihad?" Regina Spektor, who immigrated to the US
(NYC) from Russia, once said that "if we had the Internet 20 or 25 years
ago, there would have been no Cold War because you could text someone
and be like 'Hey, is this really what your country is like?' and they
could be like 'No, actually, it's not.' Okay great, crisis averted!" As
much as I love her, I think Kerry's point shows that she was wrong-- we
can still be as clueless as people were then, even about people who are
our neighbors, friends, family. And a lot of times that comes from not
asking. One thing I really appreciated about Sri Lankan society was the
openness about religion. Here, talking about it is impolite and
embarrassing. And so we don't ask the questions we really have.
And the questions, as Kerry points out, should really be about the
moral imperative shared by all of the world's faiths. What I appreciated
most about the speech was what I said before-- that it wasn't mainly
about avoiding religious conflict (as if we were talking about
containing a flu epidemic) but about ways which people of differing
religious opinions can work together to combat social and political
evils. I thought his rhetoric was strongest when focusing on this, not
on the whole "we all believe in God" thing-- I think the speech suffered
from an ambivalence as to whether or not he was talking about the shared
goals of monotheistic religions or of all people. (My Buddhist host
family in Sri Lanka, for instance, would probably be confused by the
assertion that what unites all peoples is a worship of God. Not to
mention atheists and agnostics.) In any case, the speech overall I
thought was really interesting, a call for religious understanding based
in a transformation of old religious language: a new understanding of
what natural law might mean to Catholics, or what "city on a hill" might
mean to the (at least traditionally) New England Protestants of Yale
Divinity School.
Here is a link to her full comments, the tread contains the speech -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=150866&mesg_id=150988This year, I would say that in the Republican primary, there are many who might have the view of Mormons expressed by the Baptist preacher. This could be aggravated by Romney's plastic persona ( I meant this in the sense that he seems as fake as a Ken doll, but there is other interpretation that also fits - that he is a shape shifter, as Shrum said.) If true, this could really hurt him. One thing pollsters are ignoring in Iowa is that any district where he fails to get 15%, he gets nothing. If his "real" % of supporters going in is the 18% polled, it is likely a lot of districts will be under 15% AND for those above the 15%, he is not likely to be the second choice.
In the general election, Obama's faith will be an overt issue as well as a covert issue. For some it will be the "he's a secret Moslem", for others an accurate view that his faith, like Kerry's, is not from the same branch as theirs. The former are lost causes, they also likely think he was born in Kenya - and they are really just saying he is not "their kind".
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
