Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Mixing Religion and Politics

By

I’ve listened to BMG’ers rail about the pernicious influence of Religion in the Presidential race.

Mitt having the temerity to approach BYU alumni for donations – when they’re mostly MORMONS like he is!  The way the Catholic Church tried to shoot down John Kerry by denying him Communion just because he’s pro-choice!  The way that John McCain is cosying up to Pat Roberson in a hope to influence Evangelicals!

So plese, use the comments section of this piece to express your disdain and disgust that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both making Sunday morning post-sermon political speeches in churches in Alabama, about 100 yards away from each other in different congregations.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I’ve already noted some concern about the way Obama uses religion to set his stands on public policy.  I don’t have any problem with Romney hitting up BYU alumni for $$. 

    <

    p>
    On the other hand, if McCain wants the support of Mr. “ACLU homos, and abortion caused 9/11 and Katrina” Robertson, that strikes me as a problem, just as much as Romney’s buddy-buddy-ness with Ms. “Edwards is a faggot” Coulter.  And the church’s denying Kerry communion was OBVIOUSLY political, unless they were doing the same for every pro-choice person, which they don’t.

    • There’s a missing comma — the Robertson thing should read “ACLU, homos, and abortion …”

      <

      p>
      And to expand on the Kerry point: you don’t see the Catholic church denying communion to the Catholic yet pro-death penalty Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, to name two of the most obvious examples.

      • Kerry wasn’t denied communion everywhere, notably in Boston.  It was just a few ultra-conservative bishops who took that step in their dioceses.  I’m sure that if some local state senator in that diocese was pro-choice those bishops would take the same step.  In almost every diocese around the country Kerry was, and is, allowed to.  Same is true for other pro-choice and pro-death penatly politicians.

        <

        p>
        As for Scalia and Thomas, they would I imagine follow under the jurisdiction of Cardinal McCarrick in DC.  After the whole  Kerry brew-ha-ha McCarrick was tapped to head a panel to look into whether pro-choice politicians should be allowed to receive.  As far as I know he let the issue die, rather than turn what is supposed to be the ultimate symbol of Christian unity into a political football.

        • I’m sure that if some local state senator in that diocese was pro-choice those bishops would take the same step.

          <

          p>
          There are oodles of state senators & reps, not to mention US Sens & Reps, current and former, within plenty of dioceses.  We didn’t hear about any other Catholic pro-choice politicians not being allowed to get a cookie at the altar.

          <

          p>
          It’d have made quite a story.  That it wasn’t reported suggests to me that there was nothing to report.  It was about a few ultra-conservative bishops scoring political points without applying their new-found policy across their diocese.

            • That seems like exactly the kind of story that bigger media would have loved to run with.

              <

              p>
              Did it happen?  Did the MSM (of national or local variety) go with it?  Forgive me for not buying an unnamed blogger wholesale, even if it is PP.

            • In the post on your blog you opine that they were singled out for their treatment because of their chromosomes.  Obviously Kerry is a man, and so is Brian Joyce who was removed as a lector from his parish in Milton after he switched on the issue.

              • …and I believe Joyce was removed after I wrote the piece.

                <

                p>
                In a perverse way, it was encouraging to see the Cardinal become an equal opportunity punisher.

                • I disagree with you calling it a punishment.  I belong to a number of organizations, and I have a position of responsibility in a few of them.  If I was to take a public stand in opposition to something one of these organizations held dear I would in essence be removing myself from them.  They would have every right to ask me to resign from my position of responsibility, or to change my public stance on the issue.  If a Director of the Ford Motor Company came out and said he prefered Honda’s I don’t think he would stay on the Board much longer after than that.

                  <

                  p>
                  Joyce, Gomes and L’Italian were not excommunicated – neither was Kerry for that matter.  They were simply told that their public positions were incompatible with the position of the Church and that they could no longer present themselves publicly as leaders in the Church.  Thats not really a punishment.

                  <

                  p>
                  Also, I think Joyce was removed before, not after, your post. 

      • …that was funny because for a minute I actually thought Pat Robertson was refering to everyone in the ACLU as “homos”. I could easily picture him saying that.

  2. …should BMGers be upset about?  Or should we just be upset that they spoke in a church?

    • Others have complained – bitingly, insultingly and at great length – about the mixing of faith and politics, because Republicans have discussed belief in front of religious groups.

      <

      p>
      Apparently, it’s OK to tell reigious groups how to vote, just not how your beleive.

      <

      p>
      And I am not asking for outrage, as another commenter alluded, just an acknowledgemnet of some hypocricy on the issue.

      <

      p>
      Republicans talk to evangelicals = Bad.
      Democrats talk to potential voters in church = Good.

      • Republicans pander to evangelicals = Bad.
        Republicans talk in and enjoy the warm reception of churches that advocate homophobia, an end to choice, etc = Bad.

        <

        p>
        Is there evidence that this is what Senators Obama and Clinton were doing in Selma?

          • …you’re the one who brought up this topic, so show me? Your original post strikes me as an incomplete thought. The onus is on you to show us where the controversy, where the controversey lies.

            <

            p>
            I haven’t read too much about itbut it seems to me they didn’t end up there on accident, they were there to commorate Selma’s Bloody Sunday” and the Montgomery to Selma civil rights marches.

            • Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos is a publicly avowed atheist and 65% of DailyKos members don’t believe in God.  http://www.dailykos….

              <

              p>
              Markos has said:

              <

              p>

              In my 32 years, I’ve gone from devout Catholic, to confused Catholic, to militant atheist, to tolerant atheist. I’ve spent time on the entire spectrum of religious belief and disbelief, and reached one final conclusion: I don’t care what you believe as long as you don’t try to impose it on me. If all believers lived by that rule, we’d be a much peaceful world and avoid silliness like that going on in Alabama.

              Alabama has now joined California, Florida and Texas as “national jokes”, with a Chief Justice disobeying a direct order from a federal judge (upheld by the US Supreme Court) to take down a massive monument to the Ten Commandments on court grounds.http://www.dailykos….

              <

              p>
              Meanwhile, Markos own atheism cannot be irrelevant to the fact that he constantly chides and criticizes Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for speaking publicly about their Christianity.  http://dailygotham.c…

              <

              p>
              Will the Republicans make an issue of this when Markos hosts a candidates forum, he hopes, for ALL of the Democratic presidential candidates this August, with national media attention to the hosting group, the 65% atheist/agnostic DailyKos, with its history of anti-religious statements published at their website?  http://dailygotham.c…

              <

              p>
              Only time will tell whether having a candidates’ forum hosted by an atheist/agnostic group will become a Republican talking point against ALL of our candidates and lead to trouble at the polls in 2008.

              • You quote Kos as saying

                I don’t care what you believe as long as you don’t try to impose it on me.

                What is your problem with this statement?  Are you a “my way or the highway” sort of person?

                <

                p>
                I almost didn’t respond to your post, but I am truly curious to hear a rational explanation as to how “live and let live” is a bad thing, and why anyone espousing the philosophy, whether atheist or theist, should be vilified.

              • Mr. Holland has been autobanned from DailyKos by the membership for persistent posting and reposting of troll comments and diaries.

                <

                p>
                I guess he’s looking for newer pastures for his particular brand of fertilizer.

        • One politician opens his Bible and it says “Blessed are the poor,” and thats what he talks about.  Another opens his an it says “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,” and thats what she talks about. 

          <

          p>
          Why is the pol who talks about ending poverty from a Biblical perspective reaching out and the other who talks about protecting unborn children from same perspective pandering?

          <

          p>
          Why was it OK for the Unitarian Church to hang a huge banner on the side of their building facing the Statehouse supporting gay marriage but not OK for any of the other churches who opposed it to say so publicly?  It seems pandering is in the eye of the beholder.

          • I have no problem with a religious institution using its faith to unite, support, and welcome people.

            <

            p>
            I have lots of problems with a religious institution using its faith to discriminate against, divide, and exclude people.

            <

            p>
            (And, for the record, speaking out against intolerance is not an equal form of intolerance.)

        • The fact is Rev Al Sharpton ran in the Democratic Primaries in 2004.  But you don’t here much about that when the topic of religion / politics comes up…at least not at the BMG.

          <

          p>
          What political offices has the good Reverend held prior to his run for the White House? Anyone?

      • I figure candidate4s will cozy up to groups of potential voters and doners whereever they can find them.  I don’t mind THAT at all.  That is as old as politics.

        <

        p>
        What I DO mind is letters read from pulpits telling congretants how to vote, or what legislation to trash, no matter which pulpit the letter is read from.  To me, that seems like a violation of trust, and disgustingly poor boundaries.

        <

        p>
        But for candiudeates to smooze anyone who will listen and to go anywhere they are invited:  Natural.

      • I figure candidate4s will cozy up to groups of potential voters and doners where ever they can find them.  I don’t mind THAT at all.  That is as old as politics.

        <

        p>
        What I DO mind is letters read from pulpits telling congregants how to vote, or what legislation to trash, no matter which pulpit the letter is read from.  To me, that seems like a violation of trust, and disgustingly poor boundaries.

        <

        p>
        But for candidates to smooze anyone who will listen and to go anywhere they are invited:  Natural.

        • If a church teaches that serving the poor is a priority, why shouldn’t religious leaders be able to advocate for legislation that serves the poor?  If a Holy Book says “Thou shall not kill” and a  vote on the death penalty comes up, why shouldn’t religious leaders be able to say this policy violates a tenet of our faith?

          <

          p>
          The Unitarian Church in my hometown sent a bus load of people to DC a few years ago for a pro-choice march.  I didn’t see any complaints about the boundaries of church and state being violated then, but when the Catholic Church speaks out against abortion then they are pushing their religious beliefs down the throats of others.

          • pushing their religious views down the throats of others. Care to try to explain it a different way?

            <

            p>
            The difference between the Catholic Church and the Unitarian Church, aside from the whole skeevy nature of hundreds of abuses being covered up from the Holy See’s organization, is that the Catholic Church has chosen as its priority in America to seek to destroy and/or supress rights. Unitarians, on the other hand, have only came out in favor of increasing diversity, human rights and personal freedom.

            <

            p>
            I don’t think it should be the place of any church to try to destroy the rights of others based on their own personal religious views. However, I don’t mind if churches seek to help on matters of social justice and increasing rights, etc. One has no noticiable negative consequences on society, while the other one is totalitarian in nature.

            • What about when the Church came out against the death penalty?  The Supreme Court has ruled that if the state wants to inflict capital punishment then it has the right to.  There may be compelling reasons why it shouldn’t, and I believe there are, but thats not why the Church opposed it.  They opposed it because they believe every life is sacred, every human is made in the image of God, because God commanded Thou Shalt Not Kill and because Jesus said love they neighbor as thyself – even murderers and rapists.

              <

              p>
              The Church “destroyed” the right of society to eliminate harmful elements of society and its ability to punish criminals the way it fit.  Is the Church’s opposition to the death penalty one that has no negative consequences on society or is it a totalitarian abuse of its power?

              • has any parish, anywhere in the US, ever refused communion to a Catholic politician on the grounds of his or her pro-death penalty stance?

                • I think Kerry may have been a special case in that he was running for president and he garnered extensive media attention.  It may have happened and we just have not heard about it. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Even still, I’ve never heard of any church denying anyone aside from Kerry communion because of their position on abortion, just removing them as liturgical ministers.  I imagine if there was a Catholic who was running for president who supported the death penalty you would hear an outcry there as well, perhaps not as loud, but there would be one.  If I ever return to the Church I know I would.

            • You cannot say that those who disagree with you seek to destroy rights, and should be suppressed, while those who agree with you seek to foster social justice and should be encouraged.  That is hypocricy.

              <

              p>
              Every church is entitled to its own set of beliefs, and they vary across a political and social spectrum.  Political action within churches is difficult, as some denominations – on both conservative and progressive sides – hold strong opinions about current events and political matters.

              <

              p>
              To me, the sanctuary is for worship.  Not for speeches.  I would condemn any politician, regardless of party, who gave a political speech in a sanctuary.  God doesn’t vote.

              • =p

                <

                p>
                Okay, on a serious note, we can look at abstinence policy from this lense: trying to enforce abstinence is, in fact, infringing on someone’s human rights. How do you tell someone they can’t have sex? It’s a very basic, human function. I dare say it’s a that a consensual relationship is a human right.

                <

                p>
                That said, I’m not saying a church isn’t entitled to its own views. By all means, if they think homosexuality is the downfall of society, for example, then preach it. I’m only saying that I think it’s wrong for a Church to legally push its views on non-parishoners if those views infringe on others’ human rights. So, I’m saying that if a Church tried to legislate a ban on gay marriage, I think that’s wrong.

                <

                p>
                I don’t mind it when churches get involved when they aren’t infringing on rights because no one gets hurt in that process. I think there’s a difference there, but maybe you disagree. That’s why America is great; we have that very basic right to disagree.

                <

                p>
                Maybe a better policy, one we could both agree on, is that churches shouldn’t try to legislate anything – whether they seek to infringe or expand rights. Maybe they should stick to nearly speaking about issues, not organizing to change them. I could get down with that. However, America has a long history of organizing at church levels. Often times, they’ve proven to be the only stable and large enough group in the area to organize from – such as for many communities during the Southern Freedom Movement. Without churches, equal rights for African Americans wouldn’t be anywhere near as strong as they are today. So, it’s still a touchy subject and that’s why I maintain my position that I don’t mind if church-communities seek to expand human rights, so long as they don’t try to legislate an infringment against such basic rights.

                • For them, gay marriage or abortion is not a human right.  Its not even a Constitutional right.  When they oppose it they don’t believe they are infringing on anyones rights at all.

              • Certainly, there are quietist religions that make no claim on public policy or action, but it is expressing a very specific religious doctrine to suggest that a “sanctuary is for worship, not for speeches”.  Muhammed, after all, was very much a political leader; many of the expressions of Islam have an inescapably political component. Many progressive Christians feel their faith calls them to action against injustice.

                <

                p>
                Even if we look at Christianity historically, we see that before the French Revolution and before the Thirty Years War, Christianity in Europe had a pretty tight relationship with temporal authority.

                <

                p>

                <

                p>
                The problem, of course, with abstinence teaching is that it just doesn’t work. So it is crappy social policy. Of course, one is welcome to have a religious doctrine say that adding salt to water will turn it to ice, too, but policies in the public arena are usually tested by outcomes, not by how dear the belief in them is to a core constituency.

              • Church is for worshiping God, and learning whatever it is that makes us kinder, more honest, more self-disciplined, more compassionate, etc.

                <

                p>
                I do not want political organizing of any variety combined with church and have voted with my paws in this regard.  Whether a cause I happen to agree with, or disagree with.  Organize busloads at community centers, through blogs – but not at church. 

                <

                p>
                It isn’t only the divisiveness, but also the inherent social pressures.

                <

                p>
                So I am no happier with Unitarian peace sermons than I am with Mormon diatribes against the equal rights amendment and in favor of the “one Man/One Woman” amendment, or Catholic anti-gay marriage sermons – if they are from the pulpit.

    • That the state provides tax exemptions to religious institutions so long as they recognize a separation of church and state. The distinction there is education vs. “politicing.” Now, if presidential candidates go simply to educate the churchgoing public on issues of the day, that’s one thing. If they go to tout themselves and ask for a vote etc, to receive an endorsement or anything like that then these churches should lose their tax exemption.

      <

      p>
      Anyway, we shouldn’t be upset that Obama and Clinton go to the churches. What we should care about is what they do while they’re in there. It’s a fuzzy distinction but I for one would like someone to follow the candidates around and file a complaint to the IRS against every church that promotes or does anything other than educate its paritioners about issues.

      • It appears that both just gave speeches touting their candidacies, as each claims to be the true heir to MLK, Jr.  both talked explicitly about their presidential runs.

        <

        p>
        So – was that appropriate?

        • And someone should file to take the tax exempt status away from the churches that provided that political forum. Simple… it’s not the candidates, it’s the churches who have a responsibility — and a substantial tax exemption to lose — to not blend the church/state line.

  3. My inbox is crowded, it seems, with things conservatives think I should be outraged about. Apparently, I’m not just subject to the categorical imperative for what I do and say but for what some liberal does or says anywhere else on the globe.

    <

    p>
    I’m hoping Ward Churchill can take this on. Ward? Are you there?

  4. All religions are not the same, so the discussion sort of collapses before it gets going. One needs to talk about specific religious leaders before one can really have a particularly interesting discussion. So to your point, can you offer any details about the politics of the congregations Clinton and Obama were addressing?

    • Obama spoke to an AME (African Methodist Episcopal) congregation.  I was raised Mthodist Episcopal myself, and have gone to AME services.  I would describe their ‘politics’ as a slightly conservative variant of Methodism.

      <

      p>
      Clinton spoke at a Baptist Church – which I would describe as philosophically more conservative than the Methodist Church overall.

      • American Baptist churches are each independent, so vary across the conservative-liberal spectrum.  There is no “authority” to which they answer. 

        <

        p>
        Southern Baptist congregatins are supposed to follow the guidelines laid out by the Southern Baptist Convention.  While their congregations may be more uniform than those of the Am Baptists, there are still variations.

        <

        p>
        So, just saying “Baptist” isn’t really saying much about the nature of a particular congreagation. 

  5. …then I’ll just patiently wait for you to start condemning the black civil rights movement for operating and organizing out of churches and chapels.  Imagine the temerity of those people!

  6. Separation of church and state is far more important for religions than it is for politics. The result of letting politicians run your church is that people who want power will run your church instead of people who are actually interested in your religion. Fundamentalism is a way to manipulate people more than anything else. If you prevent churches from having political power, fundamentalism will die out naturally.

    <

    p>
    I have no problem with politicians going to churches and talking to congregations. I have no problem with politicians using religious quotes in their speeches. Why should quotes from Plato be acceptable, but not quotes from Jesus?

    <

    p>
    The problem is when church leaders start actively taking part in the political process. Churches should not advocate for any particular politician. They should definitely not advocate for any particular political party.

    <

    p>
    Churches should be free to discuss political matters. It would be unreasonable to say that Christian churches can’t have sermons about helping poor people, opposing abortion, war, or the death penalty, or any other topic just because it is currently being debated by the government. But their is a difference between advocating for a particular politician and advocating for a particular position on important issues (important as determined by the church).

    <

    p>
    Many people form their values based on their religion. You can’t tell them that they have to leave their religion behind. That includes politicians. If religion is an important part of a politician’s life, they should let people know that. If churches are interested in letting politicians speak during their services, they should be free to do so.

    <

    p>
    Churches will lose embership if they pander too much to politicians. The Catholic Church denying Kerry communion in what looked like an attempt to influence the election was one of the things that made me stop identifying as Catholic. And my problem with someone cosying up to Pat Robertson isn’t that he claims to be christian, but that he regularly preaches values that I dislike.

Archives