OPINION & EDITORIAL
Why not scrutinize religion?
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by John Sprangers:
- No cease-fire needed in primary war (April 3, 2008)
- Obama to placate extremist jihadists (March 13, 2008)
- As general election approaches, Obama faces uphill battle (February 28, 2008)
- Debate victory a credit to issues (February 14, 2008)
- U.S. foreign policy promises dependent on advisers (January 31, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Misguided attacks sure to sink Dems (April 16, 2008)
- A delicate topic (November 26, 2007)
- Barack Obama: Political St. Nick (October 15, 2007)
- Idealism on tap at Obama fundraiser (October 16, 2007)
- Religion, morality should be separated (December 5, 2007)
by John Sprangers
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Two events this past week made me think about the role of religion in politics. The first was the already infamous “gaffe” by Sen. Barack Obama, D.-Ill., at a San Francisco fundraiser, in which he suggested that the religiosity of rural Pennsylvanians was, in part, a reaction to their sluggish local economies.
The second was President George W. Bush’s decision to pull out all of the stops for Pope Benedict’s first American visit.
A little reflection on these stories led me to conclude that while our separation of church and state remains, church and politics are as tight as ever. Unfortunately, it’s an unholy alliance — one that breeds pandering and illusion but little worthwhile discussion.
Mr. Obama’s statement has been the focus of both the political press and the two other major campaigns this week. But they weren’t looking to engage him in a discussion of his remarks — when it comes to religion, they only want to play “Gotcha!”
A dubiously devout Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., came out with a boilerplate barb, that “people don’t cling to religion, they value their faith.” Sen. John McCain dismissed the remarks as “elitist.” And the press was frantically trying to determine the effect the comments would have on Mr. Obama’s rural voting support. No one, though, really wanted to address whether the comments were true or not. That is because talk about religion on the campaign is never an exchange of ideas or a debate — it’s a contest to see whose statements most closely resemble the country’s religious orthodoxy.
Yes, as Mr. Obama admitted, the statement was “inartful,” but there’s nothing earth-shattering about the claim that people are more likely turn to religion in tough times. That has been one of the main stories of faith for as long as there have been believers. But heaven forbid a candidate consider anyone’s beliefs anything less than divinely inspired, altruistic or constant.
The only reason such a statement strikes us as even mildly offensive is that we have come to expect politicians to be completely reverential when it comes to issues of faith. No major candidate this year has publicly expressed any doubt about their belief in the Christian God, though one can hardly be surprised. The last president known to do so was William Howard Taft.
Then there was Mr. Bush’s welcoming of Pope Benedict XVI — perhaps the grandest we’ve ever given a foreign leader. Why? Said Bush — because “he comes as a man of faith — not as a politician.”
These two instances, I think, help to define the current state of American political discourse on religion. Political elites are not interested in questioning or rebelling against the traditional, unthinking view of religion imposed upon them by the general public. And as demonstrated by the rhetoric of Hillary Clinton and President Bush, we still treat “faith,” no matter the kind, as an absolute good.
Yet, in a modern, information-driven world, shouldn’t faith — as opposed to knowledge — be considered undesirable until proven otherwise, not the opposite? Isn’t faith the opposite of what we teach our students in school? That is not at all to say that faith is a bad thing per se, only that it seems against our modern instincts to exalt it as we do.
I disagree with what was implied by Mr. Bush’s comment — that faith is necessarily superior to politics. This is part because the two are often inseparable. The pope has a huge influence on political life — the Church’s backward stance on contraception in AIDS-ridden southern Africa is one example. The American evangelical vote is another. And it only takes a quick review of the history of religion to recognize faith hasn’t always been as praiseworthy as Mr. Bush believes.
I’m not calling for complete agnosticism or atheism in our politics — I would just like to see more openness to debate and a questioning spirit when it comes to religion. Seeing as even Mother Teresa had doubts about religion, I have a hard time believing that our politicians don’t. It is time to bring the discussion of religion in politics into the 21st century — to do away with the expectation that our politicians be devout believers, to be open to frank discussions about religion and irreligion in our society, and to recognize that faith for faith’s sake is without merit.
John Sprangers (sprangers@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in international studies and political science.
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 8:58am):
The founders of the republic were also bitter (about taxes mostly), and if they hadn't clung to their guns there would be no USA today.
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 9:09am):
Yes! I wholeheartedly agree! Thanks for this post!
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 10:44am):
To answer the rhetorical question "Isn't faith the opposite of what we each our students in school", the answer is "no".
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 11:34am):
So long as we keep discussing faith and science/information as somehow dealing with the same claims or as competing/contradictory methods of understanding, this argument won't end. Articles like this overlook the point: religion obviously provides something for people, but what and why? Could something else do it? This isn't the topic for an op-ed, its a topic for intense academic scrutiny and personal self-reflection.
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 12:21pm):
All I know is the bible has an interesting take on homosexuality....
Anonymous (April 18, 2008 @ 8:42am):
"we still treat 'faith,' no matter the kind, as an absolute good."
Who do you mean by "we"?
Your breathtaking hubris would come as a surprise to the immolated corpses of Janet Reno's WACO misadventure... or the millions of Buddhists in Pol Pot's killing fields... or the millions more Tibetans "disappeared" under Mao, etc., ad nauseum.
History teaches us that faith and freedom are the only forces standing between free people and the "rational" forces of atheistic/agnostic Marxism.
Leftists should show US a little "openness" (glasnost in Marxist parlance) and own it.
Anonymous (April 18, 2008 @ 10:03am):
Faith is an emotional, typically irrational, belief held in lack of or in spite of existing evidence. The only place faith is safe is in the shadows. Faith(religion) ought to be crushed/stopped. The ignorance of the new Ben Stein movie is proof of this.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
There is no more evidence to suggest Jesus was any more real than: Thor, Odin, Mithra, Thoth, Ra or any of the thousands of other gods. In fact, the evidence seems to shout Christ was not a real boy:
jesuspuzzle.com
jesusneverexisted.com
It is just the fact the delusion (Ignorance) has spread through US like wildfire.
Tony Schwartz
t_schwartz@att.net
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
