Politics and religion: Can they ever truly be separate?
Panel discusses a love-hate relationship
Ana Ramos and Kyle Hauff
Mast News Intern and Reporter
In his first conference on faith-based and community initiatives, President Bush said, “There’s a way to accomplish the separation of church and state, and at the same time, accomplish the social objective of having America become a hopeful place and a loving place.”
Given that the U.S. is largely a Christian nation, has it reached or maintained that balance? Is it really possible to detach religion from politics, especially in wake of the upcoming elections? These were some of the questions posed at the Faith and Reason dialogue Nov. 8.
Before a small crowd of about 20 of PLU’s community, three faculty—Kevin O’Brien and Kathi Breazeale of the Religion Department and Amy Young of the Communication Department—responded to various questions posed by professor of communication Art Land, who acted as dialogue mediator for the first portion of the dialogue. From the panelist’s responses, it was evident that religion is difficult to separate from politics.
“Religion starts at the beginning of our country. The founders thought it was important,” O’Brien said. “In any nation, it’s important.”
Yet panelists agreed it is most vibrant in the U.S. What may account for the country’s strong connection to religion is that religion in the U.S., unlike in other countries, is and has historically been voluntary, which has made it popular.
“We like to choose things,” O’Brien said. “We want to be in charge, and religion stays vibrant here.”
There is an irony and paradox in the U.S. people’s freedom to choose. Breazeale, a specialist in the areas of gender, race and class and how they impact the political scene, points to how the U.S. has traditionally treated minority groups.
“Look what we did to natives, Africans...they had no First Amendment rights,” Breazeale said.
The panelists were questioned on the role Christians have played in public policy and if they had a particular, non-negotiable agenda.
While many may criticize the Christian right’s single-issue voting, O’Brien said that it might be more than a single-issue. It could be a core issue that defines our country.
If abortion equates to murder in one’s mind, a person could easily question what the image value would be of our nation if we were to support that policy, O’Brien said.
“How can we talk about healthcare, when we’re killing fetuses?” O’Brien said.
Likewise, issues such as abortion are so emotionally based that people stop using logic, Young said. In fact, she has a list of topics that cannot be used in her speech courses, which includes abortion.
Asking the question, “what do you think about abortion?” is not a conversation starter, Young said. It’s “more like a can of whoop-ass has been opened...the baggage associated with certain debates are hard to get around.”
Following the hot-button topics came a close look at the political candidates running for president. They agreed Romney is perhaps the “official” Republican candidate since faith is his centrality.
However, his faith is viewed as “different” or “weird,” said O’Brien. This may lead many moderates to take the side of Giuliani, who is viewed as a more traditional and strong Christian man.
The panelists also analyzed the perceived religious difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.
Young provides Hillary Clinton as an example.
“She’s very in-line with feminism...this is icky to religion,” Young said. “300 years ago, she would have been burnt at the stake.”
Clinton is a strong Methodist, yet this tends to be overshadowed in her campaign, Breazeale added. Many people don’t put together Christianity and feminism.
Land brought attention to both audience members and panelists with the Web site, beliefnet.com, which has a “God-o-Meter” that “scientifically” measures how many times a candidate invokes the word “God” effectively or uses religious language in speech.
Given the religious language used in the elections, would results be different if candidates weren’t allowed to talk about faith? Young’s response suggested that it would be difficult, if not impossible to separate faith from the election
“I don’t think it would happen in this country, that your values wouldn’t be tied to faith,” Young said. “Trustworthiness comes in trusting your values...People would try to find ways of getting that information about candidates.”
The next Faith and Reason dialogue is in February. Ideas for discussion topics for the next dialogue can be sent to the Campus Ministry office in UC 190 or e-mail cmin@plu.edu.
The Mast
Pacific Luterhan UniversityUniversity Center, PLU, Tacoma, WA 98447
Ph: 253.535.7494 Email: mast@plu.edu