by Justin Latterell
In 1960, John F. Kennedy was running for President, and running away from the perception that he was more accountable to the Vatican than to the American people. When it came to the question of his faith, JFK’s response was that he would “be a President who happened to be Catholic, not a Catholic President.” That sentiment seems to have stuck with Democrats eversince. This year, the party has a new JFK, but the role of religion in politics is as awkwardly apparent as ever.
Unlike John F. Kennedy, John F. Kerry is facing an electorate who increasingly want to know that their leaders’ policy decisions are informed by faith. Despite being a lifelong Catholic, Kerry is struggling to meet those demands in a way that seems sincere. When he was asked in the second presidential debate about tax dollars being used to pay for abortion, Kerry responded that he “can’t take what is an article of faith for [himself] and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever.” He used a similar approach in the third debate to explain his support of legal rights for same-sex couples despite his “belief that marriage is between a man and a woman”. Kerry’s logic – that personal religious beliefs shouldn’t be codified into public law – seems appropriate for a leader of religiously diverse nation.
Despite the virtues of Kerry’s approach to religion and politics, the weakness of his argument is that abortion and gay marriage aren’t articles of faith in the same way that, for example, a belief in the Trinity is. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Importantly, the Constitution doesn’t prohibit legislation that addresses issues of the public good that happen to coincide with the moral teachings of a religious tradition. Therefore, in the same way that John Kerry invokes his faith to justify his stance on poverty and the environment without violating the Establishment Clause, he could also appropriately invoke his faith to justify legislation that would criminalize abortion. This approach has left Kerry vulnerable to being labeled as a flip-flopper by his opponents.
Unlike Kerry, Republican incumbent George W. Bush does not hesitate to discern public policy in the black-and-white context of his faith. After a disappointing turnout among religious conservatives in the 2000 election, Bush and his staff have specifically crafted his language, policies, and public piety to mobilize that voting bloc. From his proposed Faith-Based Initiatives program to his inaugural address in which Bush alluded to or directly invoked the name of God six times, Bush’s masterful team of speech-writers has woven religious imagery and biblical allusions into the context of every-day issues.
Bush’s campaign staff has adopted a similarly aggressive approach to mobilizing religious voters. Earlier this year, for example, the Bush campaign made headlines after sending out a letter asking supporters to forward their church directories to campaign offices to help build a list of likely supporters for the upcoming election. Despite the protests of conservative and progressive religious leaders, the campaign did not retract its request. Bush’s campaign website also illustrates his strategy for appealing to religious voters. In contrast to John Kerry’s website (www.johnkerry.com), which offers a printable “People of Faith” pamphlet aimed at inclusiveness, community service, social & economic justice, and of course, instructions for planning “People of Faith Potlucks,” President Bush’s website (www.georgewbush.com) separates religious voters into three distinct “Bush-Cheney Coalitions”: the Catholic Team, the Conservative Values Team, and the Jewish Team. Each group’s section of the website pictures prominent religious figures who support the President and offers a printable document that divides issues like traditional marriage, support of Israel, and abortion into two columns entitled, “Bush: Right for Catholics/Conservatives/ the Jewish Community – Kerry: Wrong for Catholics/Conservatives/the Jewish Community.” Not surprisingly, his targeted religious audience has taken his message to heart.
In recent months, three books have been written and a documentary has been produced highlighting President Bush’s Christian faith. Remarking on the Religious Right’s response to Bush’s policies, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC) stated that, “Many have been pleasantly surprised by him in his first few years, and he has been much more appealing to evangelicals.” But like any other special interest, the loyalty of groups such as the FRC isn’t free.
On February 23, 2004, the Washington Times reported on President Bush’s hesitancy to support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. The article cited a chorus of religious conservatives responding to the president’s ambivalence with veiled threats of political mutiny. Bay Buchanan, of the conservative think tank American Cause, stated that Bush’s “hesitancy makes the true believers be concerned that he’s not with us.” Likewise, Gary Bauer, president of American Values, claimed, “There is nothing else on the president’s agenda that comes close to the polling numbers on this, not his economic plan, not Iraq, not government spending, nothing.” Tony Perkins added that “what [President Bush] may have done three years ago is going to be eclipsed by how he responds to this.”
On February 24, 2004, President Bush held a press conference in the Roosevelt Room calling for a constitutional amendment to protect “the institution of marriage.” On marriage and other issues, the president’s religious convictions are almost certainly genuine, but his Administration’s policies and language of faith seem to be motivated more by politics than piety. By suggesting that a voter’s religious affiliation should compel his or her vote, Bush not only ignores the diversity of opinion within religious communities, but more dangerously, he strengthens the claim that a political
party can possess the will and authority of God.
At his inauguration, President Bush promised that “when we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass by on the other side.” That statement could have been a powerful and prophetic call for Americans, especially those of faith, to start lifting up the downtrodden and oppressed among us. Yet looking back on nearly four years of a widening income gap, an unjustified war in Iraq, under-funded educational mandates, and environmental deregulation, we must ask whether this Administration’s policies have made America more like the Good Samaritan who stopped to care for his neighbor, or more like the robbers who left him stripped and bleeding on the side of the road in the first place.
In this election, we can either vote for an incumbent whose policies brazenly reflect his religion, or a challenger whose policies cautiously reflect his faith. In the sixties, Americans were genuinely concerned that John F. Kennedy would be ultimately accountable to the Pope instead of the people. But at this critical juncture in our history, where militaristic fundamentalism has gained a foothold in the halls of American churches and government, we should be doubly worried that George W. Bush is beholden to the Religious Right. For the sake of our country, our world, and our religions, something has to change.
The answer is not to create a Religious Left. Instead, Democrats and Republicans must acknowledge that good people of faith disagree on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Both parties must stop treating the social views of the Religious Right as though they are the benchmark for all people of faith. Voters must recognize that religious convictions should never be the sole determinant of party affiliation, and that any candidate who uses faith divisively for political gain doesn’t belong in office. When we lose sight of the simple truth that God’s will is neither indebted to, nor possessed by any one person, religion, or political party, we lose sight of God and democracy themselves.
