Pluralism as a political value

Former Arkansas governor and 2012 presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee found himself in hot water this week after he called Islam the "antithesis of the gospel of Christ" and said that churches that share worship space with Muslims are caving to a religion "that says that Jesus Christ and all the people that follow him are a bunch of infidels who should be essentially obliterated."

In an analysis of how Islam may shape campaign politics, Politico's Bryon Tau wrote: "As Republican candidates define their national security stands in the 2012 elections, conservative discomfort with Islam in America will be a feature of the debate."

Should Islam be debated on the campaign trail? Are religious issues in danger of being exploited?

If there's a danger of religion being exploited on the campaign trail, that danger has long since arrived. Does anyone remember the fact that both Barack Obama and John McCain took the audacious step of participating in a nationally broadcast Q&A about social and moral issues in an evangelical church (Saddleback) with Rick "Purpose Driven Life" Warren as moderator? While some questioned the propriety of the proceedings, the message it sent to religious minorities was very clear, that "moderate" (might vote for a Democrat) evangelical Christians were the constituency to woo. All questions and answers were filtered through a Christian lens, and the millions of Americans who stood outside that paradigm quietly overlooked. Once you understand that evangelical Christianity currently sets the tone of social and religious debate for important political contests, it doesn't seem hard to assume that the ongoing conspiratorial "discomfort" over Islam will dominate the rhetoric, particularly from the Republican party.

I'm not what you'd call a fan of the dominant monotheisms, but I think the current fevered discussions over Muslims, particularly the increasingly frantic explanations about how everything from democracy in Egypt to union protests in Wisconsin are connected to plans for a future caliphate, are nothing but transparent fear-mongering by a segment of American Christians afraid that their unchecked cultural dominance is coming to a close. Mike Huckabee, who I discussed in a previous On Faith column, was simply caught speaking the unvarnished opinion of his supporters. When you have two global religions, each with individual and exclusionary truth claims, whose extremists reject all forms of pluralism, it's little wonder demonization and hostility are the result. The flaws of Islam have been, and are, the flaws of Christianity, though I'm sure neither side's militant wing(s) would be willing to admit it. In between is everyone else, including moderate Christians and Muslims of conscience, trying to move us beyond the stereotypes, straw men, and conspiracy theories, and embrace a future of coexistence and tolerance.

There are real problems to be addressed within Islam, but there's no productive way to do that on a political stump. So long as our collective conception of Muslims remain a distorted caricature, we'll never get past the "terrorist" (or "caliphate") and instead engage the largely peaceful and integrated Muslim communities in our own back yards. The more we frame these men and women as villains, the more we'll shrink their options to the (adversarial) ones we leave them. The fear-mongering by the Huckabees, Becks, and Limbaughs sow the seeds of discord, and will reap nothing but ugliness if allowed to grow. If we allow this in 2012, we further erode the secular constitutional government that promises equal treatment for all citizens, regardless of their belief systems. We sink into an America unrecognizable to its own founding spirit in the name of uplifting a fantasy "Christian" country.

My modest proposal: if we cannot leave religion off the stump, cannot resist hobnobbing at the pulpit, and glad-handing at the megachurch, then let us at least expand the parameters. How wonderful would it be if inherently pluralistic faith groupings like Hinduism, Buddhism, or modern Paganism were also allowed to ask questions on the same national podium that Christians now claim as their own? What if we allowed indigenous voices to ask moral questions of our prospective leaders instead of ceding that honor to the Rick Warrens of this world? If Muslims are to be so central to some political careers, to electoral futures, why not have each of these men of power sit down with a panel of Muslim leaders and academic to discuss their views? For surely, if a belief cannot withstand honest and open questioning, then it is worthless as guiding political policy.

Finally, let's demand that our press not fall into the trap of dualism when it comes to these issues. If On Faith is proof of anything it is that the United States is endlessly diverse when it comes to religion. If only certain Christians and Muslims are engaged, alternately defending and attacking each other, the voices of Americans who fall outside those labels are lost.

By Jason Pitzl-Waters  |  February 24, 2011; 5:29 PM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: Talking to your kids about sex | Next: Charlie Sheen rant: More anti-Semitism in Hollywood

Posted by: cecilg | February 26, 2011 8:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Kingofkings1 | February 25, 2011 3:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Kingofkings1 | February 25, 2011 3:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: kst2 | February 25, 2011 2:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: windreader | February 25, 2011 12:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment