The wrong kind of Christian?
One of the most significant textures shaping the 2012 presidential campaign is the nature of the Christian faith of the two odds-on frontrunners.
President Barack Obama spent much of his adult life as a member of the Trinity Baptist Church in Chicago, a mostly-black congregation whose pastor, Jeremiah Wright, became a talking point in the 2010 race.
Conservatives have attacked Mr. Obama for belonging to a church that espoused what they view as anti-white perspectives. A growing number of right-leaning voters also suspect that the president may be a closeted Muslim.
But questions about Mr. Obama’s faith don’t just linger on the right.
Gays and lesbians have been increasingly confrontational with black church leaders who make up a significant part of the progressive coalition in America.
Many African American churches have opposed gay rights — and same-sex marriage in particular.
Over the last three years, LGBT groups have pushed Mr. Obama to abandon his opposition to gay marriage, which they describe as “religious-based bigotry.”
So depending on who you ask, the president is too Christian, the wrong kind of Christian or not Christian at all.
On the other side of the aisle, meanwhile, you have Mitt Romney, the telegenic and well-spoken former Massachusetts governor — who also happens to be a Mormon.
Politico has a front-page story on their website today suggesting that Romney’s faith is a big problem for some core conservative voters, especially in key GOP-primary states such as South Carolina.
The article quotes one politically active pastor as saying, “I don’t think Mormons are Christians – I don’t think they see Jesus Christ as a deity.”
Publicly, most conservative voters say a candidate’s religious faith won’t determine their vote, but many political experts say they’re unsure about the impact once the voting-booth curtain closes.
In an effort to lock down his base, Romney has tacked to the right on many social issues. After campaigning for governor as a pro-choice candidate, he has now embraced the right-to life movement.
So here again, he may not be Christian enough for some voters, but in moderate parts of the country such as New England — and among female voters — he may appear “too Christian” or too conservatively Christian.
Lurking behind this political debate is the much larger issue of what “being Christian” means in America. The white-anglo-saxon-Protestant consensus fractured long ago.
While most of us still describe ourselves as Christian, that umbrella term now incorporates a vast array of doctrines and dogmas, as well as national and racial overtones.
Also at play is the fact that a growing number of Americans are no longer Christian at all: we are either agnostic, atheist or “other.”
And it makes some voters uncomfortable when issues central to our lives — whether we can choose to have an abortion, say, or get married — could be shaped by someone else’s faith.
So what do you think? Should religious faith play this large a role in our politics? Do Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney fall within your comfortable definition of “Christian”? And if not, does it matter?
Comments welcome and, as always, keep it civil.
Tags: religion
Brian – arguably religion shouldnt play a role, but as you point out, it certainly does and always has. At least there is no official religion.
I’m not looking for “born-again” as a must have qualification for being president.
I am looking for someone who accepts the Judeo-Christian faith as part of their world view.
Ideals such as love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, etc. aren’t necessarily part of every religion’s point of view.
“Love you neighbor as yourself” used to be axiomatic in our society. I want it to be so with our president, and anyone I vote for, for that matter.
We can’t take these things for granted, anymore, which is unfortunate for us.
First I do not think religious affiliation should play a large role in who we select as President. Both of these cases bother me, our President or Mitt Romney should have to worry about or explain their specific religious beliefs. Of course our faith is a major part of who we are and I have no doubt that the faith of both men impact how they act and what they believe.
Secondly just factually Mormons do not believe in the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), for most traditional Christians this would put them outside of Christianity. But I don’t think that should impact the politics, I would be fine with a Muslim or Jewish President or an atheist.
No church or clergy controls our government. But, our nation is a democratic republic in which the people influence the government. The government has no control over how the people form their values and beliefs. Whether it be by religion or any other means is not for the government to decide. The ideal outcome on social issues is a slowly changing blend of ideas in which the majority rules. That is the way it is. Like it or not, history has proven it superior to most other forms of government.
Those of us that have spent our energies on more fully understanding better our instinctual drives, our social controls and cultural expressions, are finding that we’re not assisted by traditional religious fables and belief systems. In fact, a growing number find we’re unable to separate truth from distortion. Those that are otherwise desperate to cling to something, of course, turn to Christianity or other similar fear-based fables while completely disregarding what science has steadily revealed about humans and the universe. Most politicians are so self-absorbed they find little time to question the authenticity of donkey-riding gods and the like, thus condemning the rest of us to religious war after war.
Why are so many people so weird about their religion? Believe whatever you want to believe and let other people do the same. It should have no bearing on politics.
When it comes to voting for anyone for anything, you have to look at what they say and do, hoping they are speaking the truth and not just saying what they say to get votes.
As to religious faiths, they all have their pluses and minus. You really can’t know everything about a person, based upon what religion they say they belong to. Same is true for those who say they don’t subscribe to any religion.
Speaking of minuses, they all have a lurking problem, at least for all those who believe in some sort of life beyond this life. While the idea can provided some comfort in the face of death, it tends to take away the importance of fully valuing this life. Would there be any suicide bombers if they didn’t think there would be a life of rewards beyond this life?
no, it shouldn’t.
Some people feel they own patriotism, so it’s no surprise that others (or perhaps the same) feel they own Christianity as well.
I know atheists and agnostics who are good, decent selfless people. I know Christians (and those of other religions) who are selfish, small-minded judgmental people. I know those in both groups who are the opposite. Religious affiliation in and of itself plays no role in my vote. It’s the extent to which their values and policies correspond with mine.
the belief of a god and afterlife are crutches.
Unless and until politicians realize the universe is a system of components related by common physical laws and that it makes no sense – in fact it is illogical – to impose our fantasies, dreams and desires, i.e. a dominating position on this planet and outward, it seems obvious that religious and other type wars will prevail and we will continue to be doomed to fail to recognize that taking into account such common laws is ultimately necessary to advance all of mankind, not one or two tribes adhering steadfastly to ancient religious memes.
When religion and politics merge, the fine art of compromise — the genius of our democracy — becomes impossible.
The church in Chicago is Trinity United Church of Christ. It is not Baptist. The church and Jeremiah Wright have been ill treated in the media since 2008, and Wright didn’t respond well. However, he and his church were very highly regarded in Chicago when I lived there in the 80’s and 90’s. And they were highly regarded by the mainstream religious community. What they did for the communities around the church was substantial. I was a Presbyterian minister there and my assistant was a member of that church. There are different kinds of Christians, obviously, and any candidate ought to declare who and what they are and let the chips lay where they fall.
Whether you thought about it before or not, we were always comfortable with the knowledge that all religions were somewhat Judeo-Christian in nature providing some of these tenants:
1) a future judgment of souls determining an eternal state of peace or punishment
2) an esteem of others at least as high as our own selves
3) giving to the less fortunate
The “one size fits all” religion can no longer be assumed.
Some religions teach that killing of others will be rewarded in the eternal state.
Some religions teach that self is higher than the well being of others.
Some religions teach that this is the only life, and there is no eternal consequence for present-day actions, so do whatever benefits you for the moment.
Yes, it does matter what religion people adhere to, and yes, our Judeo-Christian roots were a blessing to our society.
I think the US has done pretty well keeping them separate while at the same time allowing for the full free expression of our individual and corporate spiritual drives. Spirituality has been a part of human existence since recorded history, you can’t pretend it does not exist as it is a part of being human. On the other hand for Christians; Jesus said, give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, so for me that would include the government.
We have had ups and downs, but really it is pretty unique and I think one of our strong points. Just from a Mormon perspective we have a pretty strong Mormon contingent in Congress right now.
I don’t care what religion someone belongs to or doesn’t belong to.
I do care if they are going to make a big deal out of it.
What JFK and Regan had in common was an ability to be their own man and not resort to “and God told me.”
When you do that, you are on the slippery slope of terrorism.
How do you know though that they didn’t?
“all religions were somewhat Judeo-Christian in nature providing some of these tenants”
So there are no religions older than Judaism and Christianity that held any of those tenants? Hinduism predates Judaism by at least 1500 years.
There’s only one (religious) precept I want to see our presidents adhere to: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Often, those who have professed their Christianity most loudly have done rather poorly at living by the golden rule.