Comment
print
September 26, 2008
Religion Overdose
Abraham H. Foxman
JTA Wire Service, New York
This year, there have been increasing signs that the presidential race will present the American public with a profoundly unsettling infusion of religion and religiosity.
At the Democratic National Convention, the program included panels on “How An Obama Administration Will Engage People of Faith,” “Moral Values Issues Abroad,” “Getting Out The Faith Vote” and “Common Ground On Common Good.”
Clergy from across the religious spectrum had a significant presence, conducting Scripture readings at a multi-faith “kickoff event” and offering invocations and benedictions. There was a clear effort to be inter-denominational, but it also was apparent that the Democrats felt compelled to infuse religion into their convention to be politically viable.
At the Republican convention, religiously themed events also played a prominent role. Clergy led the convention in prayer each day, and there was considerable time devoted to discussing “faith-based initiatives and family values” and one Republican spokeswoman recently identified as being “at the heart of our party.”
There was less focus on religious diversity and less of an effort to call public attention to this religious content, probably because it was less of a departure from past GOP programs.
In raising our concerns, we mean no disrespect to religion or to family values. But there comes a point when being open about faith crosses a subtle line into pandering.
Some of what we have seen is excessive and aggressive. It is saying, “Vote for me because I’m a person of faith” — and that is directly contrary to the constitutional principle that there shall be no religious test for public office.
Both parties seem to have reached the conclusion that appealing to religious voters is good politics. But what kind of message does it send, in our religiously diverse society, when the two major presidential candidates sit in a church and forthrightly answer Pastor Rick Warren’s questions about their personal relationship with Jesus?
This may be good politics, but it is not healthy for our nation.
This is not to say that Americans should oppose candidates who are religious, or that candidates shouldn’t feel free to discuss their religious beliefs. It is understandable that candidates, from time to time, will want to express those beliefs and how their faith will inform and influence their policymaking. And there’s nothing wrong with expressing one’s religious perspective — especially when confronted with misinformation, innuendo and rumor.
However, appealing to voters along religious lines can be divisive.
It is deeply troubling when religion is no longer just an element in understanding the character of a candidate but central to a party’s efforts to win votes. Government should not endorse, promote, or subsidize religious views — and particular religious views should not be the determining factor in public-policy decision making.
When candidates campaign, they should be encouraging voters to make decisions based on an assessment of their qualifications, their integrity and their political positions.
The next time a candidate is asked to discuss a personal relationship with God, it would be refreshing to hear an answer similar to John F. Kennedy’s of nearly 48 years ago: “I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic.”
Religion, he was saying, is part of him, but it should not be the primary lens through which Americans view him.
Abraham H. Foxman is national director of the Anti-Defamation League.