Lancet Jades
02-23-2004, 07:38 AM
"Religion and politics: Are they inextricably intertwined?"
Printed on Thursday, February 19, 2004 @ 00:10:52 CST ( )
By Raff Ellis
YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)
(YellowTimes.org) – At the tender age of ten, my father deemed that I was grown enough to wait trade in his shop. As one who embodied all the wisdom of a survivor of the Great Depression, he sought to pass on the self-same principles that would surely help me survive in the cruel world that lay ahead. "Always greet the customers with a good morning or good afternoon," he commanded, and "never talk about politics or religion." These were the simple rules he felt would keep me from getting embroiled in senseless arguments. Of course, if I minded my Ps and Rs, I wouldn't be alienating customers or hurting business either.
I often wonder what my dad, who passed on a dozen years ago, would think about politics and religion today. It seems to be getting more difficult by the day to separate the two, because they have become so intertwined.
In the good old days, it was standard practice for politicians to covertly use religion to get elected but, once the office had been captured, they would gently distance themselves from it. At least this was so until 1980 when the Reagan administration continued its pandering to the religious right after taking office. And now we have a president who, while wearing the chevron of religion on his sleeve, professes to talk to God and take orders from Him. Often there are prayer breakfasts in the White House. We have an ordained minister heading the Justice Department who starts each workday with staff prayer meetings. And Congressmen convene sessions with prayers at the Capitol. There seems to be a lot of praying going on in government buildings, except of course, those labeled as public schools.
The first amendment of the Constitution is the opening point of reference when discussing the relationship between church and state. Many have sought to interpret this amendment in a way that Thomas Jefferson, its author, did not intend. Some even say it was intended to protect churches from government intervention, not the other way around. But any student of Jefferson will surely point out this quote: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
A "wall of separation" was what he said and what he meant.
A rather frightening offspring of the marriage of religion and politics is an emboldened fundamentalist movement's increasingly invasive role in government. Politicians have been cowed into courting these constituencies by visiting their churches, temples, mosques and even theological schools to attract their support. Religious groups, backed up by large campaign contributions, push their agendas with the government just like any other political action committee, sans PAC registration. You might want to ask yourself what happened to the wall of separation that Jefferson envisioned.
It has even become fashionable for candidates to announce their beliefs and, on occasion, the beliefs of their forebears, especially if there is a Jewish antecedent somewhere along the line. Although he is by no means alone, former candidate Wesley Clark mentioned his Jewish father and Methodist mother, and recalled going to a Baptist church three times on Sundays as a child. He also said he would allow Republicans to join his campaign without having to "repent," and has occasionally told crowds that he "accepted the Lord as my savior" at age 9. He certainly covered all the bases.
Roy Moore, the ousted Alabama Supreme Court justice who made headlines last year by refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument he placed on public property, is thinking of throwing his hat in the ring, recently refusing to rule out a presidential candidacy, even at this late date. And who wants him to run? Why the Christian Coalition, of course, where Moore was the featured speaker at a "Family and Freedom" rally in Atlanta. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported he was "treated like a rock star, signing autographs and getting thunderous standing ovations."
It's interesting to note that when John F. Kennedy ran back in 1960, he did back flips to distance himself from his Roman Catholic faith. It wasn't fashionable back then to be a Catholic presidential candidate. Ah, but times have changed.
In his State of the Union speech on January 20, George W. Bush mentioned religion-related subjects such as marriage and faith-based initiatives. And he also used religious language to convert several secular subjects into spiritual themes. For instance, he said, "I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom," when discussing the bringing of democracy to the Middle East. What he is saying is that he has a divine mission to convert those who do not believe in his vision. He might heed Blaise Pascal's admonition: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
Whenever morality based subjects invade the body politic, the danger that religious interests will overwhelm rational behavior is always present. Witness the abortion debate, welfare reform, gay marriage and the death penalty, among others. Issues of social justice and public policy can become hopelessly intertwined with various societal segments' religious beliefs, often times embroiling such beliefs in contradictory behavior. As an example, I hardly think it was "Christian" to shoot abortion doctors as a protest against this practice, or torture and murder a man because he was gay, or stand outside a prison and chant, "Fry him!" Pascal would cringe at this vindication of his rebuke.
I think my dad would agree with me today that the problem is not discussing religion or politics but mixing the two together. I'm sure he would also agree that it would be in our best interest if we all strived to return to a more secular approach to politics and government. Don't you? [Raff Ellis lives in the United States and is a retired former strategic planner and computer industry executive. He has had an abiding and active interest in the Middle East since early adulthood and has traveled to the region many times over the last 30 years.] Raff Ellis encourages your comments: rellis@YellowTimes.org (rellis@YellowTimes.org)
Printed on Thursday, February 19, 2004 @ 00:10:52 CST ( )
By Raff Ellis
YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)
(YellowTimes.org) – At the tender age of ten, my father deemed that I was grown enough to wait trade in his shop. As one who embodied all the wisdom of a survivor of the Great Depression, he sought to pass on the self-same principles that would surely help me survive in the cruel world that lay ahead. "Always greet the customers with a good morning or good afternoon," he commanded, and "never talk about politics or religion." These were the simple rules he felt would keep me from getting embroiled in senseless arguments. Of course, if I minded my Ps and Rs, I wouldn't be alienating customers or hurting business either.
I often wonder what my dad, who passed on a dozen years ago, would think about politics and religion today. It seems to be getting more difficult by the day to separate the two, because they have become so intertwined.
In the good old days, it was standard practice for politicians to covertly use religion to get elected but, once the office had been captured, they would gently distance themselves from it. At least this was so until 1980 when the Reagan administration continued its pandering to the religious right after taking office. And now we have a president who, while wearing the chevron of religion on his sleeve, professes to talk to God and take orders from Him. Often there are prayer breakfasts in the White House. We have an ordained minister heading the Justice Department who starts each workday with staff prayer meetings. And Congressmen convene sessions with prayers at the Capitol. There seems to be a lot of praying going on in government buildings, except of course, those labeled as public schools.
The first amendment of the Constitution is the opening point of reference when discussing the relationship between church and state. Many have sought to interpret this amendment in a way that Thomas Jefferson, its author, did not intend. Some even say it was intended to protect churches from government intervention, not the other way around. But any student of Jefferson will surely point out this quote: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
A "wall of separation" was what he said and what he meant.
A rather frightening offspring of the marriage of religion and politics is an emboldened fundamentalist movement's increasingly invasive role in government. Politicians have been cowed into courting these constituencies by visiting their churches, temples, mosques and even theological schools to attract their support. Religious groups, backed up by large campaign contributions, push their agendas with the government just like any other political action committee, sans PAC registration. You might want to ask yourself what happened to the wall of separation that Jefferson envisioned.
It has even become fashionable for candidates to announce their beliefs and, on occasion, the beliefs of their forebears, especially if there is a Jewish antecedent somewhere along the line. Although he is by no means alone, former candidate Wesley Clark mentioned his Jewish father and Methodist mother, and recalled going to a Baptist church three times on Sundays as a child. He also said he would allow Republicans to join his campaign without having to "repent," and has occasionally told crowds that he "accepted the Lord as my savior" at age 9. He certainly covered all the bases.
Roy Moore, the ousted Alabama Supreme Court justice who made headlines last year by refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument he placed on public property, is thinking of throwing his hat in the ring, recently refusing to rule out a presidential candidacy, even at this late date. And who wants him to run? Why the Christian Coalition, of course, where Moore was the featured speaker at a "Family and Freedom" rally in Atlanta. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported he was "treated like a rock star, signing autographs and getting thunderous standing ovations."
It's interesting to note that when John F. Kennedy ran back in 1960, he did back flips to distance himself from his Roman Catholic faith. It wasn't fashionable back then to be a Catholic presidential candidate. Ah, but times have changed.
In his State of the Union speech on January 20, George W. Bush mentioned religion-related subjects such as marriage and faith-based initiatives. And he also used religious language to convert several secular subjects into spiritual themes. For instance, he said, "I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom," when discussing the bringing of democracy to the Middle East. What he is saying is that he has a divine mission to convert those who do not believe in his vision. He might heed Blaise Pascal's admonition: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
Whenever morality based subjects invade the body politic, the danger that religious interests will overwhelm rational behavior is always present. Witness the abortion debate, welfare reform, gay marriage and the death penalty, among others. Issues of social justice and public policy can become hopelessly intertwined with various societal segments' religious beliefs, often times embroiling such beliefs in contradictory behavior. As an example, I hardly think it was "Christian" to shoot abortion doctors as a protest against this practice, or torture and murder a man because he was gay, or stand outside a prison and chant, "Fry him!" Pascal would cringe at this vindication of his rebuke.
I think my dad would agree with me today that the problem is not discussing religion or politics but mixing the two together. I'm sure he would also agree that it would be in our best interest if we all strived to return to a more secular approach to politics and government. Don't you? [Raff Ellis lives in the United States and is a retired former strategic planner and computer industry executive. He has had an abiding and active interest in the Middle East since early adulthood and has traveled to the region many times over the last 30 years.] Raff Ellis encourages your comments: rellis@YellowTimes.org (rellis@YellowTimes.org)