From CNN’s Belief Blog, More Americans say too much religion in politics:
For the first time since 2001, a plurality Americans say there is too much religious talk from politicians, according to a new survey released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
The poll showed 38% of Americans saying there was too much religious expression from politicians, compared to 30% who said there was too little. Twenty-five percent said the current level of religious rhetoric was the right amount.
I’m one of those who happen to believe there’s too much religion in politics. This might surprise you because I’m pretty outspoken about my faith and conservatism. Nevertheless, I subscribe to the “Sober Cannibal” theory of politics. Which means I’d vote for an atheist (or “sober cannibal”) if I thought they could do a good job. In this, I agree with Martin Luther: “I’d rather be ruled by a competent turk than an incompetent Christian.”
I happen to believe the main role of government is to protect my freedoms (including my religious ones), keep the American economy rolling, and keep the country safe. And, oh, keep itself in check. If religion is doing its job, it should shape (1) Society, which should shape (2) the Electorate. Which means the Church is ultimately more responsible for the state of the government than the government is for the state of the nation. Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. I’m interested in yours.
I get leery when folks start mixing religion and politics. A politician’s religion will color his or her choices, but it seems like it’s only brought up as a tool to attract a particular set of voters.
Like when George W. Bush was voted in. I heard a lot of folks saying it was great to have a president who read his Bible every morning. Um, anyone can say that. Isn’t it more important to discuss demonstrated competency and fruits of the Spirit?
(Not commenting either way about Bush’s competency or demonstration of salvation.)
yes, yes, yes! But I’m not sure about voting in a “sober cannibal,” though. Is this the difference between voting for a known agenda, rather than an unknown?
Okay. How about voting in a “competent turk”?
I’m a Christian Libertarian.
I am that because I think that politics is ruining the Church. I also believe the Church is ruining politics.
Jesus said to Render Unto Caeser that which is Caeser’s. We Christian Libertarians take that as a call to be involved in politics as Christians without expecting the government to mandate Christian principles through secular laws. As a Christian I believe that things like getting people to live the Christian lifestyle happens when they are converted and filled with the Holy Spirit. I don’t think it at all happens when we force our point of view through the law.
This is an old debate. Zwingli and Simons, the two great Swiss reformers, fought it, with Zwingli believing the government was a sword the church could use to cut sin out of the world and Simons believing that “[…]no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
As a Mennonite, I clearly side with (Menno) Simons on that. Unlike many other Mennonites, however, I don’t believe we are to disengage entirely from politics. I think we live here and are stewards of our time and our finances. As such, we are compelled to seek the most responsible governance and that which we believe will further our stewardship aims. Nevertheless I do believe that it is a failure to our faith when we corrupt the teachings of the Saviour with the ideals of the political theatre.
Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek; in politics we fight to win.
Jesus tells us to love our neighbour; in politics people often have great enmity for those who support a different candidate. I recently received an email from a woman who goes to a church filled with ardent Mitt Romney supporters. Her church friends will not speak to her and have stopped inviting her to group functions of the church because she supports Ron Paul.
This is the tragedy of the political church. By doing both it becomes the worst example of each.
Katherine, I have found myself thinking whether or not I shouldn’t look into Libertarianism. Frankly, I hardly know anything about it. My problem is, I’m just not sure how, in a democracy, Christians can and should NOT have political clout, especially when said politics can potentially undermine religious freedoms. So I guess I’m kind of conflicted.
It’s a common misunderstanding that Libertarians are not involved or influential in politics. We are VERY involved. (Another common mistake is the assumption that all libertarians be pro-choice. I like to tell people I’m pro-choice; pro the choice to use birth control or abstinence. I’m pro-life, as are many libertarians.)
People who are interested in where they actually stand can always take Tge World’s Smallest Political Quiz (google it for the current address…I can’t get the copy paste to work on my phone).
I completely disagree. Not having enough religion in politics is what got us into this mess. Over half of the Founders were ordained ministers. You can’t tell me their intention was ever to leave their faith at the door. =P
Faith should always inform our personal decisions, but I maintain that a government capable of treating questions of abstract morality is too powerful. Some moral questions are relevant, of course, like the protection of life, liberty, and property. Those questions are relevant because that’s what our government is for. Our government’s purpose is NOT to make people moral–its purpose is to keep its citizens alive, to protect their rights to make their own moral/religious decisions (unless those decisions infringe on the rights of others).
Well stated, Joel. (hah! an accidental pun. “stated”. )
No, the government’s job is not to police morals — but our politicians should not be forced to leave their religion at the door, and should be free to practice it and express it within the confines of government — ie, if they want to pray, they can.
I totally agree that our politicians should be able to “practice and express” religion “withing the confines of government,” as you said. But as far as I know, no action has been taken against the personal prayers of our leaders. They’re allowed to pray just as much as they please. As far as official, corporate prayers go, I don’t have a clear position. As a Christian, I’m inclined to say that it’s a good thing to do. And of course prayer IS a good thing. But our government represents a lot of people who aren’t Christians; our government is funded by a lot of people who aren’t Christians. Shouldn’t we take into account the objections they might have to a religion that is not their own taking “main stage,” so to speak?
I’m not a universalist. I believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man comes to the father but by him. But the religion/politics question is not a question of doctrine so much as it is one of practice. Wouldn’t we be offended if, say, a Mormon President (wink, wink) hosted a specifically Mormon “national day of prayer?” Not a private Mormon prayer in a private Mormon prayer closet, but a national event? I know I would. My government–a government of, by, and for the people–should not be endorsing a form a worship contrary to my beliefs. It shouldn’t be endorsing anything at all, much less something so emotionally charged as religious practice. I’m not suggesting that all religions are equally valid, nor am I saying that public practice should be divorced from private belief. I am suggesting however that Christians, of all people, should make a habit of applying the Golden Rule.
I like what Mike said about the Church being “ultimately more responsible for the state of the government than the government is for the state of the nation.” I would go further, though, and say that the Church is ultimately more responsible for the state of the nation than the government is. The government should protect the framework which makes civilization possible; the church should be fostering those things which make civilization beautiful and honoring to God, beginning always with the Gospel, and responding to that supremely important fact with all the tools God has given us.
… I thought we were a tolerant nation? I went to a political meeting today in which the entire thing was opened with a prayer in the name of Jesus. Not one person objected. Even those who were not believers were reverent, and respectful of the faith that roughly 80% of Americans (this includes such faiths as Mormonism, Catholicism, Jewish, etc) hold. If that many identify themselves as Christians, who is to say their government should not represent them with 80% religious leadership?
I don’t want a religious dictatorship, but I do want our government to recognize that this was founded as a Christian nation, that there are scripture quotes throughout the Capitol and other official buildings, and that prayer should be allowed in school. The Founders never intended for Government to establish an “official religion” — but they never intended for Christianity to be excluded from government. Yet, that is where we are headed, if we do not change our view of faith within government.
Mike is right: the church IS responsible for the state of its people. Our watered-down churches are the reason our society is a moral abyss. But our reluctance to be involved and make a difference does not help the situation.
Charity, I’m not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but from the reading of done (however insufficient it may be) in the writings of the founders–the Federalist Papers, for instance–I see a whole of references to ancient republics and human philosophers, but none to scripture. Am I missing something?
Another thing–why do the lives of the Founding Fathers have so much political clout? Our government is for us, not for them. Does it really matter what their religion was, or what their personal views on church on state happened to be? We’re governed by the Constitution, not by the personal beliefs of its authors. It was made to be amended, to fit the needs of changing times.
You say, ” If that many identify themselves as Christians, who is to say their government should not represent them with 80% religious leadership?” Why should the government be representing any kind of religion? If the government restrained itself to protecting life, liberty and property the religion question wouldn’t plague as at all. It could be sorted out–as it always should be–individually.
Joel,
I agree that if the government would confine itself to protecting our life, liberty and PURSUIT of happiness, religion wouldn’t play such an important role. That being said, our current government for the past 100 years or so has been increasing what it means to pursue happiness. It is using basic things that can increase one’s happiness and calling them rights. Such as everyone has a right to college education. I’m sorry but no. We all have equal access to college education (and I do think the cost of education needs to be addressed) but we do not all have the right to have our college educations paid for. This entitlement mentality is killing our freedoms and economy. We only have to look at Europe to see having the “right” to free college eduction, free health care, retirement at age 55 (or younger) and so on will collapse a system.
As for the founding fathers, I am not an expert, but what I have studied has lead me to this. You will not find many references to “scripture” because our founders spoke scriptures in their everyday speech. They didn’t need to follow up with a reference to which scripture they were referring to because the average citizen knew the Bible and knew what they were talking about. I wish I could give you a quote but at the moment I am running late for church. I will direct you to David Barton- I saw him speak once (on TV) and give an example of a speech from one of our founders and in it he found numerous scriptural references. The Bible was ingrained into them. I’ve also studied George Washington- a good book to read is Sacred Fire by Peter Lillback and Jerry Newcombe. In this, Washington is explained as the devote Christian he was and not a deist like modern history books like to portray. Washington didn’t use the terms God and Jesus often as we do today, because the culture at that time (the language used) revered the name of God, therefore the population tended to call God by various holy names/terms such as Divine Providence instead of God or Jesus as is typical today.
As for why their religion was important to how we run our government today: It is because they lived and breathed their beliefs and their faith lead their governing decisions. Washington traveled miles to go to church, he called for national days of prayer and fasting and he refused to be given the title of emperor when it was offered. Would any in our government today turn down such power? Would any in our government today beseech God with calling for prayer and fasting as described in 2 Chron 7:14?
I don’t know, but I wish I had more confidence that our government had a faith that guided them instead of politics.
I don’t believe the church should tell people how to vote, but I do believe the church should educated us and encourage us to have our faith govern our lives and morals and not the world.
You pretty much said it all — which I appreciate, since I’ve been gone all day.
Not quite, Charity. Please check out
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_overview.html
for a breakdown of the Founding Fathers’ occupations, education, etc.
Look up David Barton. He disproves (with original documentation — he owns the largest private collection of founding letters and documents in the world) most of what our government-run “history” classes have taught us. Our religious history in this nation has been completely stripped down over the last 60+ years, leading us to believe the Founders were mostly deists. They weren’t. Only two Founders had “doubtful” Christian leanings, and since both (Jefferson and Franklin) believed in the power of prayer, neither of them fit the term “deist.”
I wasn’t writing about the “Christian vs Deist” debate, nor did I think that you were talking about it.
My reply was in response to just one sentence in your post,
“Over half of the Founders were ordained ministers. ”
The information for my response to your comment came from primary source research performed by the National Archives in re the occupations, educational levels and wealth of the Founding Fathers. Please see their breakdown of this information at:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_overview.html
I’m sorry, I should have clarified. I double checked, and you are right, my original statement was wrong — over half of them were not ministers; but 24 (possibly 27) of them held seminary or Bible School degrees:
http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm
Barton is a great reference.
“Half the Founding Fathers were ordained ministers”. Really? Of what? The only Founder that was even a Christian was John Jay. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison: all Diests. They believed in a God, but actively denounced Christianity as vehicle for political disaster.
Some quotes to help:
Treaty, 1796:
United States was “not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.
John Adams “. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
Ben Franklin:
“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England.”
Jefferson:
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” – “Notes on Virginia”
.Thomas Paine
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
And further more, even Abraham Lincoln had a view:
“The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my Profession.”
Mike,
I used to believe as you- that the best person should lead us and not necessarily the Christian. Overtime, I have come to see that there is a major difference between a mature Christian leading and someone who is a Christian when it is convenient. So in that respect, I do not think the “Christian” per say is the best choice to lead.
BUT, to divorce religion from politics is a lie from Satan. To say the economy, jobs, housing, food prices, gas prices, international affairs , education reform, medical reform, etc. can be separated from God is ridiculous. ALL these come back to the foundation of what Christianity is. America was founded on Christian principles and that is what has made us good for so many years. Read Alexis De Tocqueville- he knew Christianity played a role in making the American Revolution different than the French Revolution.
This current philosophy, this current attitude of indifference to religion is only a symptom of what is truly wrong with America. Satan has come into the churches and has deceived God’s people into believing these lies.
“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” Col 2:8 NIV
“Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will.” Romans 12:2 NIV
Personally I think there’s too much religiosity in the church much less in politics. Like you I might consider voting for the competent Cannibal except for the fact a Cannibal is not competent to lead a plurality of people.
Our church has a set policy of no politics in official meetings of the church. What friends who happen to be fellow church members talk about elsewhere is between them. At the same time it is my duty as a citizen to act like a citizen. That means I should take every effort to remind my representatives in Washington they’re duty is to provide for the common defense, ensure the freedom of all citizens, and refrain from establishing any state religion.
I lean more and more toward Libertarianism each day I grow older. At 55 I am convinced the times we are safest and most assured of the intent of the Founding Fathers is when Congress is out of session and the President is on vacation.
Wonderful, Tim!
I wish we had a rule against speaking about politics during my (Lutheran) church’s Bible study hours. Once anything about government or politics is mentioned at our meetings, charity, peace and humility all go out of the room. (I left the room as well, one time.)
BTW, my dad was a Republican and my mom a Democrat, so I heard about everything political and related to government from both sides growing up. Of course, both parties were much different in those days. I’m still an Independent, having registered that way (at my mom’s suggestion) the first time I voted and seeing no reason to change over the last 45 years.
I tried to post this at the CNN page twice, only to have it bounce–probably thanks to the URL at the end:
I agree with Mike Duran at the deCompose blog, re preferring a “Sober Cannibal” aka an atheist with power in government. He clarifies his point by following it with a quote from Martin Luther, “I’d rather be ruled by a competent turk than an incompetent Christian.” A statement I agree with as well.
Minimal qualifications for an elected leader or representative should not only include being competent but also being ETHICAL. Having religious affiliation does not necessarily guarantee this. Nor does speaking often about one’s faith while campaigning. I was taught decades ago that the heart of ethics is telling the truth. I wonder if that is still considered to be true. I hear outright lying, twisting, exaggeration, virtually complete “alternate realities”, you name it everywhere I go anymore.
Right now, we in the U.S. are being bombarded with frequent dubious statements by candidates for the presidency. Please forgive me for seeming to pick on just Republicans! I’m using them as an example of what I mean because several are currently in the public eye giving speeches, interviews, approving ads, and so on.
Sadly, it’s the rare American candidate for anything who runs an ethical campaign or who resists the temptation to (at minimum) tweak facts in a speech lest they lose the support of their “base”. Evidently it has become acceptable–and possible–and maybe even necessary for political survival–to say one thing to your base, and a few months later say something else to everyone in a general election, and perhaps give yet another take on reality (whatever that is) once elected.
Why? How? Because we as a nation have the focus of a goldfish and the memory of a gnat. Say anything enough times with sufficient passion and conviction and it becomes the new truth, no matter what the facts are. (Talk show hosts terrify me because of their ever-burgeoning power and evident total lack of ethics. Oh, and their unending funding.)
I suggest bookmarking the following URL, and checking it regularly. Politifact provides grades on factual content for public political statements. Also, if you click on the link you’ll see next to a given grade, Politifact provides their research and reasoning to back up their decision. You may still not agree with their assessment, but you should come away from their site with a better grasp of who is more ethical (and competent) at least when it comes to telling the truth.
www DOT politifact DOT com SLASH truth-o-meter SLASH statements
This is quite an interesting conversation. There are variables not taken into consideration. Such as the humanist states run by Hitler and Stalin, and the religious state in Iran. As for the sober cannibal/turk vs. an incompetent Christian, neither works. What about competent Christians running our nation? With the atheist or the religious nut, we lose our freedom.
This post prompted me to write a post of my own – http://voiceofapatriot.com/?p=121
If you are interested in an explanation of of my rationale.
I suspect that most people reading this blog would greatly prefer a president who is: intelligent, competent, ethical, compassionate, a Christian, experienced in both world affairs and in the private sector, with some previous experience serving his/her local constituency. The same would hold true for our various representatives, mayors & governors.
Yes, I admit I’m really stacking the decks here. Joel: maybe that’s why many people look back to the Founding Fathers with longing–they believe that those people had it all.
In my opinion we haven’t had candidates with all those attributes to choose from in at least decades. If ever. Sometimes, especially at the local level, we have to settle for people who are just competent. Sometimes, sadly, this compromise is necessary even when comparing presidential candidates. That’s why Mike and I–and maybe others–said that we would settle for a “competent turk”. It’s not that we would prefer one over a Christian who is better qualified.
Competent Christians with a majority of those other attributes I listed probably do exist in our society. But are they running for office?
Many decades ago, an American statesman said, “If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.” Currently, ideal candidates may not be running because they’re smart enough to not want to get snarled in gridlock for a whole term. Or because they refuse to give up the local good works God has given them to do. All we can do is pray for at least one candidate who has the minimum attributes needed. If they don’t, one way or another we settle–much to the detriment of our government and of our society.
Susan,
I always enjoy your posts on both your blogs. This evening I look forward to reading your latest post.
The point you make here about either extreme is important and one that will take more time for me to respond than I have now.