I'm not saying that INDIVIDUALS should not vote according to their consciences, nor am I saying religion is destructive when it is part of political discourse. What I do assert is that, in a religiously pluralistic society, it is dangerous to democracy when religious GROUPS insert themselves into ELECTIONS and endorse or condemn candidates, leading their members to believe they can only remain in favor with God if they vote according to their leaders' dictates. It is also extremely dangerous when leaders of one religion imply that America was founded in conformity with, and thus must adhere to, their dogmas.
Religious people have always and will always vote at least partially according to their values, and that is their right. But when religious leaders tell people whom to vote for, either directly or indirectly, or when they smear candidates, or when they blackmail candidates, or raise money for candidates, or falsely accuse candidates of persecuting them, in order to gain political advantage, they are crossing a line that the Founding Fathers did not want crossed.
When Karl Rove harnessed the power of churches and pastors to register voters to vote for a specific candidate, and hand out voting guides that instructed church members for whom to vote, he was crossing a line, as were tax exempt churches which legally must refrain from this sort of thing. When some bishops in the Catholic Church said they would deny communion to candidates who did not want to criminalize abortion, even though those candidates were personally opposed to the practice, and threatened excommunication to voters who voted for those candidates, they were crossing a line as well.
Two years ago, Barack Obama gave a speech in which he reached out to religious voters, but said we must find ways to create policy and agree on issues that go beyond religious arguments, because many American voters will not be receptive to such arguments. He said:
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."
These words of Obama reflect something I have been thinking for years. As someone who abhors the huge numbers of abortions in this country, and regrets the casual approach some have to the procedure, I share the values of some "pro-life Christians." But I don't share their solution, which is to overturn Roe V. Wade and criminalize abortion. There are many reasons for that, which I will not belabor now, but what I realize about the abortion debate is that it will not be solved with either the NARAL approach or the "right to life" approach.
Religious people want to argue on the basis of religious beliefs and secular people will never be persuaded by religious arguments. Even if the pro-life movement were to succeed in overturning Roe V. Wade and banning abortion, at least one half of the country would not be convinced. And the fight would continue. Obama is saying we need to find another way to discuss these things, and use both science and reason to find a compromise that will not be perfect, but might be better than continuing this endless animosity the two sides have for each other.
Today, James Dobson is using this two year old speech of Obama's to attack him and say he is "dragging Biblical understanding through the gutter" and has a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution. Dobson is particularly irate about Obama using the example of abortion to call for a different kind of political discourse. Dobson is one of those who will not support a political candidate unless he professes the exact beliefs that Dobson and his followers do. As such, Dobson supported Bush, but abhors McCain. Even though McCain is "pro-life," he isn't conservative enough for Dobson, nor sufficiently anti-abortion. McCain would like to see Roe overturned, but he wants to return the choice of whether abortion should be legal back to the states. This isn't good enough for Dobson, who will not be satisfied until abortion is a crime everywhere.
Obama isn't just being attacked by the "Christian" Dobson, however. Muslim groups are also unhappy with Obama because he has not visited a mosque and is reluctant to publicly embrace Muslim voters. To those of us who have watched as the Republican smear machine, with a little assist from some Hillary supporters, have either pushed the lie that Obama was a Muslim or allowed people to falsely believe it, know how tricky this territory is for Obama. If he visits a mosque, pictures will circulate all over the internet "proving" that Obama is a Muslim.
Those Americans who are rational and educated know Islam is an ancient and honorable religion, but in this post 9/11 world, when millions of people have decided, with help from Dobson and the like, that the religion of Islam (and not just a radical sect of Islam) is an evil force that is responsible for killing Americans, Barack cannot do anything to allow this misunderstanding to continue, no matter how much he respects Muslims and wants them to support him.
Of course, if church and state remained completely separate, this might not be such dangerous territory. Barack's problems with those who drag religion into the public square is not limited to the internet rumor that he is a Muslim, nor critiques of his call for a dialogue that does not cater to fundamentalist Christians. As we have seen today, he is being attacked by a fellow "Christian" not just because some assert he is not the right kind of Christian, but also because he is apparently, not the right kind of American. (Groups like Focus on the Family have intertwined their brand of Christian orthodoxy with their brand of American orthodoxy.) Even though he is a Constitutional law professor, according to Dobson he has a "fruitcake" understanding of the Constitution, whatever that means.
And as we saw just a few months ago, Barack's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was all the proof that the right wing smear machine needed to prove Barack was the wrong kind of Christian, one who sat in a respected Christian Church whose pastor dared to challenge the morality of some aspects of American governmental policy, a pastor who got a little too worked up, a little too emotional, a little too angry at what has been done to black Americans at the hand of the American government and the many southern "Christians" who used scripture to justify the horrifying treatment of African Americans.
Obama is in a no-win situation here, all because religion has become way too intertwined with politics and too many rigidly orthodox religious leaders don't seem to want to accept Obama's view that Americans of all religions and no religion must learn to talk with each other in a different way. Each religious group wants to be catered to in exactly the way they think they should be catered to. Each religious group believes its tenets alone are the word of God. Each believes America must conform to their interpretation of the Bible, which in turn colors their interpretation of the Constitution.
And herein lies the problem: since America is made up of peoples who profess many different faiths, many different versions of the various faiths, as well as people who profess no faith, all of whom are equal under the law and each of whom can cast only one vote, the citizens of America must learn to speak to each other in a common language, and that language cannot be the language of the Bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other religious text.
Once Obama takes the oath of office next January 20th, I hope he will follow through on the vision he offered in his speech two years ago. I hope his presidency is one in which the radical right religious leaders can be tamed and learn that it will be good for America, and good for them as well, if we can all learn how to speak to each other, not as people of God vs. people of the world, not as religious vs. secular, not as fundamentalists vs. modernists, not as conservatives vs. liberals, but simply as Americans, concerned not about implementing one or another interpretation of the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran in our laws, but about implementing the COMMON GOOD.
In such a world, perhaps we could stop criticizing and attacking each other, stop arrogantly insisting we alone know the real truth, and start finding ways to live in peace, with love and acceptance of all people, and with real "liberty and justice for all," no matter what faith anyone professes, or what anyone believes.
How on earth could God take issue with that?
