Religion in Politics 07/08 Version

There’s an interesting discussion going on and just now a cross blog discussion about religion and politics.  The interested parties I’ve noticed thus far are Cassandra over at Villainous Company, and Bruce McQuain over at Q&O. In turn, the discussion extends to Charles Krauthammer, and Peggy Noonan.

I urge you to read all four articles before proceeding, here, though reading Bruce and Cassandra will be enough to get the jist if you’re in a hurry..( For a change, instead of quoting extensively, I’m going to make the assumption that you read these, because the post will get ridiculously long if I do it the normal way. As it is, it’s not going to be short.)

First of all, let’s call this what it is driving all of this; fear.

First of all, it wasn’t the Republicans, who hit the ‘faith’ button first, it was the Democrats.  Specifically, Hillary Clinton, who likely was behind the original rumors that Obama was a follower of Islam. it seems clear that in a post-9/11 world, the cultural influence of religion still matters.  Regardless of the Democrats admitting it or not they were ready to exploit it for political purposes. Obama, for his part didn’t help matters, when he started making an overt show of Christianity in response to that rumor.

And yes, Mitt Romney broke out the “I have a religion” speech, largely in response to a perceived threat of Hillary Clinton doing the same thing to Romney… a pre-emptive strike, if you will. And things have snowballed to a certain degree, subsequently. However, I don’t perceive that to be a problem as some others do.

I understand the concern of Krauthammer, Noonan and McQuain, but just because I understand it doesn’t mean I share it.

IMV, politics, and the governments and laws resulting from politics are supposed to be reflections of our deepest values, and both the cultural and a personal level. This is why morality and law are so often linked. Indeed, I have made the point that they are inexorably linked. So, too, is religion linked. That’s because religion, is supposed to be DRIVING our deepest values.

If we understand (as I have argued for years) that the purpose of government is to codify and enforce the values of the culture that gave it life, and also to hopefully extend the influence of that culture within the world… then the influence of religious values in our government will be a product of the degree to which religion is a part of the culture itself. This is not mandating religion; it is simply reacting to, and holding respect for the culture, as government should; this is the proper relationship.

The problem comes along as to where exactly to draw the line between a proper expression of cultural values and where those values come from in each of the candidates, and an excessive “religious test” in the election process. in the end, that’s the choice is going to have to be made by the individual candidates as they look over history and see what’s happened to politicians who have tread those paths previously. The government, nor for that matter the press, has no place in making those choices.

In truth, any limitation on references to religion in the electoral process, is going to run directly afoul of the First Amendment. In my view, it will also run directly afoul of the concept of “no religious test for high office.” what the candidates do before they get into office and the decision-making process by which the American people execute their right to vote, isn’t anyone else’s business.

If someone’s religion is what they want to run on, (and clearly in the case of both Romney and Huckabee, that’s a choice they’ve made, to varying degrees) then the voters will have to decide the matter. And trust me, so they will.

Personally, I expect over reliance on the subject will cost them votes, not win votes. But by all means let them run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. It’s their political life…. or death. Such matters are self-limited, thereby.

That does not constitute a government based test for religion for high elective office. What that constitutes in my view is an attempt by the person running for that office to tap a previously untapped segment of the electorate. whether or not, then attempt succeeds depends entirely on how accurately they’re reading the electorate. Personally, I must say, they’re well off base. That is, if they are reading the whole of the country to be in the same mold as Iowa.

I think Peggy Noonan overstates the case rather dramatically when she questions whether or not this one issue is going to be the sole determining factor in the presidential election. I think it’s a serious factor in the breadbasket states, but notice that in the New England states, New Hampshire, particularly, not so much. I think in those states in the Northeast in particular, there are a number of people who remember a certain president from the state of Georgia who lays claim to being among the most moral of the Presidents, and certainly a likable individual on a personal basis, but proved to be a complete disaster in his presidency, that being Jimmy Carter.

Be that as it may, I think what we have here is Huckabee playing to the audience he has in Iowa,(and playing the one strength he has, in my view) and Romney playing along so as not to get too far off the winning position in that one state. The rest of the determining factors are going to show up as time goes on, and we move toward super Tuesday. Further, the lay of the political argument is going to be dramatically different once we get past the nomination process.(can you imagine a discussion about religion between Huckabee and Hillary Clinton, let’s say? Yikes!)

In the end, I don’t see this as anything but a diversion. We’ve already discussed several times about how this fixation on Huckabee, is well overblown. I wonder if this fixation on religion in politics isn’t overblown as well, given that his religiosity is his sole strong point.

Then there’s the press and it’s coverage of these events. There has always been an anti-religious spin in the mainstream media. As long as I’ve been alive. Back in the day it was demonstrated rather handily with with regards to JFK and his (rather loosely held) Catholicism. Back about the same time, we heard arguments about Romney’s father, who was also a Mormon. And of course we see daily examples of fundamentalist Christians, evangelicals, being cast as complete idiots at every opportunity. I have to wonder in all honesty, if what we’re seeing here isn’t the mainstream media giving Huckabee enough rope to hang himself with the majority of the electorate. It’s true, the left can’t seem to agree on lunch lately, much less some kind of a political plan of attack, but that it’s working so effectively in Huckabee’s case, it seems logical to raise the possibility.

All that said, I’m extremely uncomfortable with the idea that this is going to be an ongoing discussion.  Calls for limitation of expression during the election process run dangerously close to violation of the First Amendment. The Constitution limits the actions of government, and the kind of controls over the people that the government can exert.  That includes free speech.  As regards religion by those not in government.  When somebody is running for office, ostensibly, they are running as a private citizen, and therefore speak their mind on any subject.  That’s the name of the game, here.

There is a major difference…. a bright line, if you will, between the various party primaries discussing religion and discussing religion within the halls of government itself and using governmental action to control it.  The Constitution limits the actions of government, not of the various political parties.  It seems to me that were treading on very dangerous ground here when we start calling for limitations on what should and should not be discussed as part of the election process.  Those limitations to be enforced, require control, namely, government control.

That’s not something I want the government anywhere near. Let the people decide such when they vote.