Discussion:
Religion - *bad* for American Politics?
(too old to reply)
**Rowland Croucher**
2008-10-28 01:00:12 UTC
Permalink
[An important comment from America's highest-profile religious=20
historian. Rowland Croucher, October 28, 2008].

*Sightings* 10/27/08

Bringing the Campaign to Finland

-- Martin E. Marty

I am currently in Finland, where scholars at Turku and Helsinki asked me to
address, among other topics, the role of religion in the American
presidential campaign. Having done very different variations on that theme
in the United States before I left, let me pass on to you something of what
I will have delivered in Finland by the time of this *Sightings*. Trying to
explain why religion is any part of politics in the United States, which was
constitutionally "born secular" (in European eyes and terms), why religion
is the hot topic in a year when the economic agenda should top all others,
and why religion in this "one nation 'under God' indivisible" becomes the
most divisive element in a campaign, is a challenge to the explainer and
will only fall short in the ears of the explainees. But=85

I called the theme "Religion and the Presidential Campaign: We Can't Live
Without It/We Can't Live With It." "It" has been an irritant in the
campaigns of Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter, Reagan, and especially
the current incumbent, though it also led to some chafing in every campaign
which I observed and sometimes covered since 1948. Why is the temperature
hottest, or worst, this year? Among many reasons has been the step-up in
24/7 TV and radio coverage and the explosion in the blogosphere, which
attracts the noisiest firebrands. All must compete to hold audiences and
readership for tomorrow, so they have to blow up differences today. Race,
incidentally, also is huge, but usually under-toned; religion gets treated
more openly.

Why can't "we" live *without* religion in the campaign? Here thoughtful
observers and partisans on all sides during the primary and on both sides
since, knowing their history and the cultural climate, acknowledge that
millions do make up their minds about politics on the basis of religious
teaching, affiliation, and habit. Religion can't be legally suppressed, and
is psychologically repressed only among the few. Good things have sometimes
happened when religion showed up in politics and the religious worked for
peace, justice, mercy, welfare, and more. Bad things also often happen, as
we observe this year.

Why can't "we" live *with* religion in this campaign? Two main
reasons: First,
the religious can be exploited or can exploit religious teachings,
allegiances, fears and promises; second, religion gets exhibited in ways
that are criticized in the texts of Judaism, Christianity, and most other
faiths. Candidates and their backers lunge at or are lured to use the
opportunities to make a display of their piety and virtue in an "I'm better
than you are, and God blesses me and mine" mode. Exploited and exhibited
religion is bad for politics, a zone where give-and-take should be built
into the process, but is not in evidence among absolutists and the obsessed
during the campaigns.

Are the exploitation and exhibiting of religion also bad for religion? I
like to hedge bets when commenting on politics, with all its built-in
ambiguity. But here I am unambiguous: it's bad. Bad for the name of
religion itself, for religious institutions, for a fair reading of sacred
texts, for sundered religious communities, for swaggering religious
communities which are too sure of themselves, for the pursuit of virtue, for
extending the reach of religion too far. Devote one's years to the public
dimensions of religious life and to the religious dimensions of public life,
as my kind and I try to do, and one can only be saddened to see the
distortions and selling-outs that blight the seasons. The broadly-defined
religious forces and texts teach waiting and hope. Soon the waiting will be
over. One hopes consciences, and not only emotions, will be stirred again.

Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, upcoming events,
publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.

*Sightings* comes from the Martin Marty
Center<http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/>at the University of
Chicago Divinity School.

Attribution

Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author
of the column, *Sightings*, and the Martin Marty Center at the University of
Chicago Divinity School.
--=20


Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ (20,000 articles 4000 humor)

Blogs - http://rowlandsblogs.blogspot.com/

Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/

Funny Jokes and Pics - http://funnyjokesnpics.blogspot.com/
d***@aol.com
2008-10-31 02:15:15 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 27, 6:00=A0pm, **Rowland Croucher**
[An important comment from America's highest-profile religious=3D20
historian. Rowland Croucher, October 28, 2008].
*Sightings* =A010/27/08
Bringing the Campaign to Finland
-- Martin E. Marty
=A0Trying to
explain why religion is any part of politics in the United States, which =
was
constitutionally "born secular" (in European eyes and terms),
But it wasn't, of course, even Thomas Paine, commonly identified as
something of a skeptic, used biblical substantiation in "Common Sense"


why religion
is the hot topic in a year when the economic agenda should top all others=
,

I don't think that is true, but then again the two are not truly
separable



=A0Why is the temperature
hottest, or worst, this year?
Perhaps it is a cumulative effect of constant assault on our community
of values,and specifically the celebration thereof, as a community.


=A0
Why can't "we" live *without* religion in the campaign? =A0Here thoughtfu=
l
observers and partisans on all sides during the primary and on both sides
since, knowing their history and the cultural climate, acknowledge that
millions do make up their minds about politics on the basis of religious
teaching, affiliation, and habit. =A0Religion can't be legally suppressed=
, and
is psychologically repressed only among the few. =A0Good things have some=
times
happened when religion showed up in politics and the religious worked for
peace, justice, mercy, welfare, and more. =A0Bad things also often happen=
, as
we observe this year.
Exactly what bad things ??? Perhaps the discourse conflicts with some
agendas?
Why can't "we" live *with* religion in this campaign? =A0Two main
reasons: =A0First,
the religious can be exploited or can exploit religious teachings,
allegiances, fears and promises;
Any group can be exploited, perhaps we should remember the
exploitation of workers by certain secular groups, or current trends
toward class warfare, at least the religious are catered to on the
basis of values, even if the caterer is not being honest.

second, religion gets exhibited in ways
that are criticized in the texts of Judaism, Christianity, and most other
faiths.
So it is preferable not to have it exhibited at all? It tells us
nothing about the man??

=A0Candidates and their backers lunge at or are lured to use the
opportunities to make a display of their piety and virtue in an "I'm bett=
er
than you are, and God blesses me and mine" mode. =A0Exploited and exhibit=
ed
religion is bad for politics, a zone where give-and-take should be built
into the process, but is not in evidence among absolutists and the obsess=
ed
during the campaigns.
Does the author think moral relativism more suited to politics?? There
is no point upon which compromise and "give and take" becomes
destructive? That may be true where all sides are decent and
honorable; but where one side is simply using such flexibility to
institute its agenda and crush the opposing point of view, often in
the name of "fairness" it simply fails. The Wiemar Republic found
exactly how such compromise progresses.
Are the exploitation and exhibiting of religion also bad for religion? =
=A0I
like to hedge bets when commenting on politics, with all its built-in
ambiguity. =A0But here I am unambiguous: it's bad. =A0Bad for the name of
religion itself, for religious institutions, for a fair reading of sacred
texts, for sundered religious communities, for swaggering religious
communities which are too sure of themselves, for the pursuit of virtue, =
for
extending the reach of religion too far.
And what would you replace it with in the public sphere? Economic self
interest? Do you really think pandering to greed or instilling a sense
of victimization a superior foundation for political discourse?

=A0Devote one's years to the public
dimensions of religious life and to the religious dimensions of public li=
fe,
as my kind and I try to do, and one can only be saddened to see the
distortions and selling-outs that blight the seasons. =A0The broadly-defi=
ned
religious forces and texts teach waiting and hope. =A0Soon the waiting wi=
ll be
over. =A0One hopes consciences, and not only emotions, will be stirred ag=
ain.

One also hopes wisdom will instruct conscience, and that honor and
nobility will not be neglected.
Shalom/Salaam/Pax! =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Rowlan=
d Croucher
Indeed !! May the peace that passeth understanding enfold us all.


Daryl
B
2008-11-04 02:08:24 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 27, 5:00=A0pm, **Rowland Croucher**
[An important comment from America's highest-profile religious=3D20
historian. Rowland Croucher, October 28, 2008].
*Sightings* =A010/27/08
Bringing the Campaign to Finland
-- Martin E. Marty
snip

Why can't "we" live *with* religion in this campaign? Two main
reasons: First,
the religious can be exploited or can exploit religious teachings,
allegiances, fears and promises; second, religion gets exhibited in
ways
that are criticized in the texts of Judaism, Christianity, and most
other
faiths. Candidates and their backers lunge at or are lured to use the
opportunities to make a display of their piety and virtue in an "I'm
better
than you are, and God blesses me and mine" mode. Exploited and
exhibited
religion is bad for politics, a zone where give-and-take should be
built
into the process, but is not in evidence among absolutists and the
obsessed
during the campaigns.

B - heh...welcome to our history....to the history of Christianity as
constructed by Paul and then Constantine. People have used fear to get
what they want...politicians and so-called "holy men" have been doing
this for eons. To me it's like kindergarten..we are all told what to
believe and it takes a bit of learning, and a whole lot of wisdom to
discern and figure out God from within. Just an opinion,
Blessings Bren
d***@aol.com
2008-11-05 03:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by B
B - heh...welcome to our history....to the history of Christianity as
constructed by Paul and then Constantine. People have used fear to get
what they want...politicians and so-called "holy men" have been doing
this for eons. To me it's like kindergarten..we are all told what to
believe and it takes a bit of learning, and a whole lot of wisdom to
discern and figure out God from within. Just an opinion,
Blessings Bren
It takes a lot of listening too. :-)

But I think people often ignore the extremely positive influence
religion, especially Christianity, has had on the political arena. The
individual, being eternal, is more valuable and more important than
the (transitory) government. People are given rights by God, not
whatever the current fashion dictates as expressed by those in power.
If you had separated Christianity from politics at the time of the
American Civil War, we might still have slavery. The secular ethos
mirroring John Lennon's "Imagine" would surely collapse into "me" ism
without the moral imperative provided by God. IMO sever the cord
between a person's religion and their politics, remove religion from
public discourse, and it is similar to removing the brakes from a
speeding car.

Daryl

Loading...