Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Deeply held beliefs go to the root of our identities
In recent debates between tea party endorsed Senate candidates and their Democratic opponents, faith has emerged as a campaign issue.
Calling himself "a pro-life Christian" in opening remarks, Kentucky candidate Rand Paul said, "I'm disheartened that my opponent has chosen to attack my religious beliefs," referring to Jack Conway's campaign ad that questioned Paul's beliefs on the bible, faith-based initiatives and 'Aqua Buddha.' (For more on 'Aqua Buddha' click here.)
In the Delaware debate between Senate candidates, Christine O'Donnell said, "I would argue there are more people who support my Catholic faith than his Marxist beliefs," alluding to a column written by Chris Coons two decades ago which he characterizes as 'a joke.'
With polls showing that voters rank the economy as a top issue, why are the faith lives of candidates up for debate?
The beliefs, or alleged beliefs, of those who would represent us in government have always been "fair game" in political battles, despite protests from both sides to the contrary. Since the very founding of America political parties have been slurring good names, digging up dirt, and hoping that deeply-rooted prejudices will win them elections.
So while I'm personally disappointed in the "Aqua Buddha" ads, the out-of-proportion reaction to O'Donnell's "dabbling" in "witchcraft", and the usual rounds of Muslim fear-mongering, it doesn't surprise me in the least. Why is religion such a perennial favorite for attack or mockery? Because deeply-held beliefs about religion go beyond (hopefully) ephemeral fiscal issues to the root of our identity and outlook.
As a Pagan I can't help but look at how the religious beliefs of the predominately Christian politicians running for and holding office will influence them on issues that concern me. I have strong opinions about health care, our economy, and host of other issues, but if I think a politician is going to treat my family of faiths unfairly I don't think I could vote for them, even if I agreed with them on other matters. It matters to me that former Libertarian candidate Bob Barr tried to ban modern Pagan religions in the military, it matters to me that Sarah Palin has deep connections to a religious movement that sees me as a demon-haunted target in a global prayer-war, and it matters to me when numerous politicians in local governments try to enact legislation for "religious free speech" in public schools and on public lands until a Wiccan, Heathen, or Druid decides to participate.
Years ago, before he became President, George W. Bush infamously said that 'I don't think witchcraft is a religion, and I wish the military would take another look at this and decide against it.' This was in response to Wiccan soldiers openly practicing their faith at Fort Hood, Texas. While the media eventually moved on from that issue, it was later discovered that these off-the-cuff anti-Pagan comments were later "interpreted at a pretty high level" by Veteran's Administration officials who then stonewalled attempts to approve the Wiccan Pentacle for veteran's grave-markers. Turning a usually routine bureaucratic process into a ten-year struggle for equal treatment. So religious belief, even when it seems trivial, can have a dramatic effect on policy.
The problem isn't that the faith lives of candidates are up for debate, it's that we are asking the wrong questions and having the wrong debates. We keep looking for the controversy, for the "gotcha" questions, instead of truly examining where an individual's theology and beliefs will take them once they wield political power on our behalf. Recently, New York City Councilman Dan Halloran almost had his candidacy derailed by the revelation that he was a leader in the Theodish faith (a form of Anglo-Saxon Heathenry). Reporters, instead of investigating what his religious outlook might be, or examining how his stated positions lined up with Theodish teachings, wrote ham-handed articles implying that he might be a stealth racist (a revelation that would be a true shocker for his multi-racial co-religionists). It was all heat and no light, a sad ongoing truism where we are still arguing over whether our avowed Christian President is a "secret Muslim".
No matter how bad the economy gets, or what the issues of the day are, our belief systems will always matter, and politicians from across the idealogical spectrum will try to exploit that. Our responsibility as citizens isn't to remove all question of faith or belief from the public square or debate hall, but to demand better examination and analysis. That means we need to stop buying into the attack narratives the various parties and factions are peddling and dig deeper into how theology and policy intersect. To stop allowing pastors and partisan pundits to set the tone, to find the right questions together as a civil society instead of constantly searching for the wrong answers.
By
Jason_Pitzl-Waters
|
October 18, 2010; 3:56 PM ET
| Category:
Pagan
Save & Share:
Previous: "Go and sin no more" |
Next: The public's business
Posted by: ThishowIseeit | October 24, 2010 7:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Why faith matters in politics
In two prominent political debates with Tea Party candidates, the issue of religious faith has come up. In fact, I suspect that it comes up in most political debates but the this week, the Washington Post’s “On Faith” section is only focused on these two debates when they asked: Faith up for debate?
It is important to note that even though the Tea Party claims to be an anti-tax group, they are really more concerned with religion than taxes. This is why Christine O’Donnell is focused on Creationism in the classroom and pushing laws which prohibit pornography and masturbation. Rand Paul of course stresses his “pro-life Christian” position just as his father did when he wrote a position paper claiming that America is a Christian Nation.
You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://exm.nr/9JzbSU
I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.
Posted by: dangeroustalk | October 19, 2010 11:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Our responsibility as citizens isn't to remove all question of faith or belief from the public square or debate hall, but to demand better examination and analysis. That means we need to stop buying into the attack narratives the various parties and factions are peddling and dig deeper into how theology and policy intersect."
(applause)
Posted by: Snoozepossum | October 19, 2010 11:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Some of the ramifications of a person's beliefs are subtle and only come out in an extended conversation. For example, someone who truly believes that the rapture will happen in their lifetime may not be motivated to care for the environment. Sadly, in depth interviews tend to be carved like the seasonal pumpkin until all that remains is a hollow shell of sound bites and memorable quotes.
Posted by: jaundicedi | October 19, 2010 3:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Well written, gets to the heart of the issue.
Posted by: cprsource | October 18, 2010 7:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
How anyone would have predicted that Pres. G.W.Bush would have gone to war - a war with a very large number of casualties and suffering on both sides - for only his own private reason ("he tried to kill my daddy!If I don't do something they will nickname me Whimp" ? This shows that the media still has a long way to go in digging up the facts that could lead us to understand the real personality of a candidate.