"Although just 40 percent of Americans go to church every week, 70 percent say they want a president with strong religious faith." This statistic was mentioned in a recent Newsweek article in which John Kerry lamented his lack of emphasis on religion in his 2004 campaign. It is certainly no newsflash that religious faith, Christianity in particular, is a crucial factor in a presidential candidate's electability; what is somewhat surprising, however, is the relatively large discrepancy between those percentages, as it is indicative of the nature of religion and politics in the United States and why a complete separation of church and state may be even more difficult than it already seems.
From looking only at the percentage of churchgoers, it is not unreasonable to think that religion does not play a large role in the daily lives of more than half of the U.S. population, since much of the practice aspect — church attendance — is absent from weekly routine. Contrasting this is the fact that a moderately large majority of Americans nonetheless want a religious president, which speaks to what we already know — the necessity of religious faith in a national leader.
Demonstrated moral integrity is a weighty factor in any election. And while we can argue for days about what this concept of morality truly entails, the above statistic helps to demonstrate that for a majority of Americans, values are found in religion. This in itself is not necessarily a problem since relevant and applicable ethical principles can be derived from nearly every religion. It becomes problematic, however, when viewed alongside the impossibility of being elected upon acknowledging association with the "poisonous" views of an atheist or agnostic because it exhibits how black-and-white our approach is to the inherently gray nature of morality.
Values, regardless of what they mean to you, me or your pastor, must come from an actual analysis of surrounding circumstances. How one chooses to conduct that examination is a personal decision, but I emphasize analysis because exploring and developing moral views needs to be a contemplative process, a synthesis of views stemming from observation and experience.
This is at odds with the formulaic view many Americans abide by: (person + religious belief) > (person – religious belief) — at least when it comes to politics. This is to say, on the whole, U.S. citizens fail to recognize that morality is not a label that's included free with congregational membership; rather, it is a constantly evolving process that involves consideration of a multitude of factors.
Religion's inextricable bearing on views of what is or is not moral, however, makes it difficult for beliefs straying from traditional religious associations to be seen as sensible or credible. This problem is glaring when viewed in the context of the 2008 presidential race. For instance, Rudy Giuliani's attempts to go beyond his religious views in defining abortion rights have had a deleterious effect on his image in the eyes of voters. In part due to his Roman Catholic background, Mr. Giuliani expressed to Sean Hannity of Fox News, "Abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against." Regardless, Mr. Giuliani asserted that it is ultimately "a woman's right to choose." This supposedly conflicting viewpoint has cost Mr. Giuliani support, due to the fact that he separated his personal religious belief from his moral principles. No matter what one's views are regarding abortion, it must be recognized that, rather than the "flip-flopping" he has been accused of, Mr. Giuliani's perspective reveals that he questioned religion's relevance to this issue, rather than assuming a gut acceptance. And because Americans are so married to the notion of religion being the primary, if not sole, dictator of values.
Mr. Giuliani's stance seems to be an ideological contradiction to many people. Failing to recognize that religion is not always bound to morality results in candidates like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, whose proclamation that he is not only "influenced" but "defined" by his religion indicates that he will never view any issue without his church goggles.
Yes, many religious people are of high moral stature. At the same time, a deliberate refusal to keep religion in its own sphere and, like Mr. Huckabee, insistance in applying it to all policy will not result in a heightened morality. Instead, it will blind and paralyze rational judgment by presenting only one possible, set path. Although it is certainly possible to refer to religion for moral direction, it must be recognized that religious association and morality can, and often do, exist independently of each other. The fact that atheism and agnosticism are automatic losing cards in an election further proves that Americans have trouble dissociating religion from values. A true ideological divorce of church and state will mean that, by Mr. Giuliani's example, values will need to be examined instead of assumed. Otherwise, we are allowing an ideological "match game" to define our view of morality. I'd like to think that there's more to it than that.
Hannah Shtein ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in philosophy and religious studies.
