Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
National Leader Must Respect All Faith Traditions
It is inevitable that if politicians think it will win votes, they will talk about their religious views. It is certainly now in vogue to do so.
I recall that in 1980 all three candidates--Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and John Anderson-- claimed to be “born-again Christians.” When all make the claim, credibility becomes the issue. No one has ever doubted the authenticity of President Carter’s religious commitment, but in 1980 the “religious vote” went to Ronald Reagan. That was unusual especially in that it must be noted that if Mr. Reagan were a “born again Christian,” that fact did not seem to require either that he attend a church with some regularity or that he support a church with regular contributions.
To show the complexity of this issue we observe that one of the most deeply spiritual presidents we have ever had, Abraham Lincoln, was known not to be a church attendee at all. In 1952, Unitarian Adlai Stevenson ran against unbaptized Dwight Eisenhower and the issue of religion never came up in the campaign. It needs to be stated that both later became quite proper Presbyterians.
It was the Roman Catholicism of John F. Kennedy in 1960 that is given credit for making religion so overt an issue in national politics. America had rejected the only other Roman Catholic candidate who had been a major party nominee, Alfred E. Smith of New York in 1928. I am certain that Smith’s Roman Catholicism was an issue in his defeat though it is hard to say that it was the determinative issue in that election. Senator Kennedy defused a potential anti-Catholic vote in 1960, we recall, by saying that he would not allow his religion to determine his behavior as president. That seemed to be a satisfactory place for a Roman Catholic candidate to stand in 1960.
In 1984, however, when Roman Catholic Geraldine Ferraro was a vice presidential nominee and in 2004, when Roman Catholic John Kerry was a presidential nominee, the Kennedy stance was judged to be inappropriate by Roman Catholic bishops who insisted that the moral stands of their church must be the policy of American Catholic politicians – or the withholding of communion was threatened.
I want my presidents to have a clear sense of who they are, including a sense of what they believe and how they live out that belief. I also want every president to know that this is a multi-faith nation and our leader must be respectful of all religious traditions and unwilling to impose any particular religious viewpoint upon the whole body politic.
I trace the beginning of the decline in popularity of the present incumbent to his attempt, supported by Senator Bill Frist and Representative Tom DeLay, to make conservative Christian end-of-life issues in the Terri Schiavo case a political cause, designed to win the support of his religious base. In a similar manner, President Bush’s use of such things as the teaching of “Intelligent Design” as an alternative to evolution and his making homosexuality a political issue, both in response to his presumed religious values and certainly to gain support from right wing religious voters, was appalling to me.
There is a fine line between religious devotion and the use of religion in the public arena to gain election. I want candidates for the presidency to know how to walk that line.
By
John Shelby Spong
|
January 25, 2007; 2:58 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Recipe for Politicians: Sincerity Yes, Advocacy No |
Next: Full Religious Disclosure on Political Issues
Posted by: Dagny | January 26, 2007 7:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This is foolish:
"I also want every president to know that this is a multi-faith nation and our leader must be respectful of all religious traditions and unwilling to impose any particular religious viewpoint upon the whole body politic."
So if a person is a Satanist, and thinks its okay to sacrifice their kids, it would be wrong if a religious politician (Jew, Christian, Muslim, or whatever) with contrary views tried to enforce a law punishing those who sacrifice children?
Posted by: Josh | January 26, 2007 2:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you Bishop Spong for an excellent answer.
pjackson82
Posted by: Peter Jackson | January 26, 2007 9:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
As long as those traditions FIRST AND FOREMOST respect basic rights and equalities.
Which means we have no respect for sexist, homophobic, hateful, dark-ages doctrines which are supposedly 'okay' because a supposed God said so!!!
The quicker religion vanishes into people's houses and nowhere else in society....the better!
Posted by: Dave Brock | January 26, 2007 4:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I wish there were more like Bishop Sprong.
Posted by: Ba'al | January 25, 2007 10:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spong seems to assume that the Bush Administration's "use of religion in the public arena" is a cynical attempt to manipulate religious voters. That is the argument that former White House staffer David Kuo made about the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.
I believe there is more at work than simply an attempt to buy votes. I suspect that the evangelicals who dominated the White House sincerely believe that government should reflect their idea of Christian values. I find their sense of holy mission to be more uncomfortable than if they were motivated by crass cynicism.
Posted by: Tonio | January 25, 2007 10:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Even if you walk that line perfectly well, it wouldn't make you a great president. It might however make you the most ineffective president of all time.
Posted by: Faith | January 25, 2007 10:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Bishop Spong, again I find myself in agreement with Poster Bob. I have no problems with your standards. I would add that this Administration has gone so far as to claim the voice of God can be heard over the White House Intercom. I do not know how much truth there is in that. I fear it is entirely within the realm of possibility here. My point is that it is up to our Church Leaders to teach their flock how to recognize religious "Snake Oil" sales people when they come upon them. It is up to our Church Leaders to identify congregations that hide from religious scrutiny and degenerate into cult like factions. I call upon the Church to step up and to ensure religious freedom of all citizens. Who else is better suited??? God Bless you and yours Bishop. Thank you. You have restored a measure of faith I have in the church of my childhood. God Bless you. My heart becomes calm again.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 25, 2007 8:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You conclude:
"There is a fine line between religious devotion and the use of religion in the public arena to gain election. I want candidates for the presidency to know how to walk that line."
I suggest the fine line between "religious devotion" and the "use of religion" for any purpose is the level of stupidity (not IQ)of the religious believer.
More specifically, how poorly educated, he or she might be; how fearful of the world and the future, how easily manipulated.
But aren't these precisely the characteristics of "piety" in all religions? To be stupid, a supplicant, fearful and pliable?
Thank you!
Posted by: Bob | January 25, 2007 8:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I'll ditto what EF said. Good insight.
Posted by: BGone | January 25, 2007 1:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Bishop Spong -
As an optimist, I like to think that in a few years people who read this essay will marvel at the fact that any of this even needed to be said.
Posted by: E. Favorite | January 25, 2007 12:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Sorry, Josh, no disrepect, but can't resist:
- Didn't God ask a father to sacrifice his only son in the Old Testament?
- Isn't one of the main narratives of the New Testament a father sacrificing his son?
If anybody's murdering anybody, we've got laws for that! No need for any particular religious beliefs.