Religion And Politics In 2012
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-11-06/religion-and-politics-2012
It once looked as though religion could play a central role in this election. Mitt Romney is the first Mormon in modern times to run for president and both vice presidential candidates are Roman Catholic. But many voters don’t see it that way. According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, most Americans are comfortable with what they know about the candidates’ faith. And they report their votes will have little to do with the nominee’s religion. Still, American politics is polarized by questions often connected to our religious beliefs –abortion, religious liberty, and gay marriage. But are we polarized to the point of no return? Join Diane and her guests as they discuss the role of religion in politics.
Guests
Jonathan Haidt
social psychologist and author of "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion."
E.J. Dionne Jr.
senior fellow, Brookings Institution. Author of "Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent."
Michael Gerson
syndicated columnist, author of "City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Bliss on November 6, 2012 @ 9:25 am wrote: “Fanatical religions of any stripe are a danger to us all ... worldwide.”
Just make sure you distinguish between fanatical religions, and all others. Or, rather, between the fanatics within a religion (or philosophy) and the non-fanatic. Religion has done both great good and great evil, not because it is inherently one or the other, but because all religions are run by humans, and we are adept at mucking things up!
Sadly, this is a distinction I don’t think Hitchens always observed.
@Etaoin Shrdlu:
I can tell when the back of your neck is getting red.
"Whether it’s banning abortion"
I'll ask you the same question I asked Eric. Do you believe science should trump ideology? Based on your statement about teaching alternatives to the theory of evolution, it sounds like you do. Care to answer?
"banning gay marriage (or any form of equality for gays)"
Really? Any form of equality? Care to elaborate on what that includes?
"banning Evolution (or mandating the teaching of the completely unscientific and false “alternatives”), banning Mosques near Ground Zero (or in many other parts of this country)"
Many parts? Really? Care to provide a few dozen examples? What constitutes "many" anyway?
"and excoriating Muslims, “secularists”, or religious liberals,"
I hear the challenging of ideas coming out of those groups and their individual representatives here, but not the groups themselves. What's wrong with that?
To Etaoin Shrdlu (writing on
November 6, 2012 - 11:07 am ):
"The truth is any faith and any philosophy can be perverted into an excuse for evil."
Except that religions don't have to be ""perverted" into an excuse for evil; they have preachments enthusiastically urging evil (infanticide, fratricide, genocide, genital mutilation, slavery, stoning to death, subjugation of women, subjugation of nonbelievers, gay bashing, land theft, racism etc.) baked into their "holy" scriptures.
mellifluous on November 6, 2012 @ 9:44 am wrote: “An interesting article posted at AlterNet yesterday: 5 Questions Mitt Romney Should Answer about His Mormonism”.
I’m interested in just one question, the one I “ask” of all candidates: Will you attempt to impose your religious views on us? On abortion, gay marriage, birth control, sex education, etc., the answer from Republicans is a clear Yes! Which is one reason I’m voting for Obama.
Dear Teece Bowman:
Your views are as jaundiced as those of partisan politics. In fact, you are mirror-images of each other.
Religious persecution is nothing new to America. The Puritans of Plymouth hanged Quakers, and Baptists were mistreated in both New England and in the South. One reason the Founders wanted Church and State kept separate was because the Anglican South and Congregationalist New England feared domination by a different denomination. (There were other, nobler, reasons too.)
As for Capitalism, what you describe is an example of it at its worst. But just as there are many other forms of Capitalism than the pure Laissez-Faire version worshiped by the right-wing, so there are other types of Capitalists than the "Robber Barons"!
Capitalism, like Religion, can be perverted into an instrument of evil, but that doesn't prove it's inherently bad.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"Will you attempt to impose your religious views on us? On abortion, gay marriage, birth control, sex education, etc., the answer from Republicans is a clear Yes!"
So imposing views is ok, so long as it's not coming from the right? 'Cause frankly, I don't see the difference in the mantra of the right (that you present at least) or the mantra of the left. Just depends on whose values you want imposed.
"Which is one reason I’m voting for Obama."
You are too, too funny!
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote on November 6, 2012 - 11:27 am:
"Just make sure you distinguish between fanatical religions, and all others. Or, rather, between the fanatics within a religion (or philosophy) and the non-fanatic. Religion has done both great good and great evil, not because it is inherently one or the other, but because all religions are run by humans, and we are adept at mucking things up!
Sadly, this is a distinction I don’t think Hitchens always observed."
Not only are religions run by humans they are invented by humans. Without the aid of reason, much less the scientific method which accounts for the nonsense religions preach.
Whenever religions are seen to be doing or inspiring good it's because those humans who are doing the good happened to have cherry picked the more enlightened parts of their scripture. If, say, they choose something that looks more like the quotes from the Qur'an below, then you get what we got on 9/11.
8:12: "Instil terror in the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike off their heads and cut off fingers and toes."
4:89: "Take not unbelievers as friends until they fly in Allah's way; but if they turn back, seize them, kill them wherever you find them"
9:5: "Fight and kill the disbelievers"
partisan politics on November 6, 2012 @ 10:05 am wrote: “. . . an overbearing all intrusive government that has all the subtlety of a politically correct cattle prod.”
That describes the “religion” of the Republican Party, which these days is composed almost entirely of the “far right”.
Facts, I notice, you consistently fail to address.
I heard Diane's guests suggest Romney's Mormon religion did not come up. On October 18 Whoopi Goldberg went after Ann Romney on the View with a false accusation about Mormons refusing to serve in the military. On October 19 Diane Rehm accused Romney of being a misogynist due to his Mormon religion.
It is clear to me the White House through their surrogates in the media attempted to play the Mormon card on Romney.
Aramis Sonofmartin on November 6, 2012 @ 10:19 am wrote: “I am sorry to hear that people believe non-religious people cannot keep their word (for example, the comments about John Locke and George H.W. Bush).”
Then you’ll be happy to hear that the majority of our Founders didn’t believe that.
The Constitution forbids "religious tests" for public office (Article 6, Paragraph 3).
George Washington called it "our boast" that a person's religious beliefs will not deprive them of the highest offices. - "Letter to The Members of the New Church in Baltimore", reprinted at page 834 of George Washington, Writings, The Library of America Edition (1997)
And he proclaimed that America "gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance" requiring "only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens" - "Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island (August 18, 1790)", printed on page 767.
Jefferson believed in “the morality of the Atheist”, and denied that people do “good acts” merely from the love of God. - "Letter to Thomas Law (June 13, 1814)", printed at page 637 of The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Random House, 1972)
So, it shouldn't matter if a President is Christian, Mormon, Jewish, or Atheist. All are good citizens - at least according to the "Father of our Country", and the author of the Declaration of Independence.
All of which makes Paul Ryan’s invocation of “religious correctness” un-American!
I take issue with the efforts by some to diminish the impact of race on this election. The overt racial appeals of some Republicans and their proxies coupled with the "dog whistle" comments by the GOP candidates were no lost on me, my peers or, it appears those in the Republican base.
Michael Smerconish's recent column ... and the flack he caught because of it .... points up the fact that in America, when issues of race arise, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Mormonism was not discussed in this election because the people that hate the president were willing to temporarily gave it a pass. They already had gotten the falsehood that President Obama is a Muslin accepted, via repetition, by a large percentage of their electorate (based on lots of polls). Since Mormonism is better than Islam in the eyes of this electorate, the religion "mission" was already accomplished.
ecgberht on November 6, 2012 @ 10:20 am wrote: “More accurate would be ‘founded on the separation of state from church’. Read Amendment #1.”
I have, many times. More importantly, I have also studied the history of the Constitution, and the development of Constitutional Law, both of which your simplistic remark ignores.
Ask yourself these questions:
1) Why is there no mention of any deity in any of the legal provisions of the Constitution?
2) Why is the promotion of any faith not mentioned as one of its purposes (in the Preamble), nor given as one of Congress’ powers?
3) Why does the word “religion” only appear in connection with the Three No’s: no religious test for public office (Art. 6, Paragraph 3), no establishment of religion and no forbidding the free exercise thereof (First Amendment)?
4) Why did Alexander Hamilton distinguish the Presidency from the British Monarchy by noting that while the latter is the supreme head and governor of the national church, the former “has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction”. - Federalist Paper #69
The answer to these (and a host of other questions I could ask) is the same: the principle of separation of Church and State is very much “in” the Constitution.
And it works both ways. The State cannot establish religion (or any part thereof), nor prohibit us from practicing what religion we choose. In fact, it couldn’t operate any other way, since freedom of religion must include freedom from control by the religion of others. So the State must also be separated from control by, or favoritism towards, religion.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
And yes, we shouldn’t make our political decisions based on religion. That’s the essence of the “no religious test” clause. While that clause only prevents laws restricting government office to the “religiously correct”, the principle behind that clause (the “spirit” of the Constitution, rather than just its letter) should guide our decisions. I would never vote against someone merely because they are of a different faith. But I will always vote against anyone who seeks to impose their faith (or any part of it) on the nation. And that’s true even if the candidate is Jewish (my faith)!
P.S. - Jesus advocated a pretty good example of Church/State separation: render unto Caesar . . . .
P.P.S. - I don’t get the relevance of the mustard seed parable. First, there are more than one. Second, they all seem completely inapposite to what I wrote. Care to explain?
I am a Mormon, one of the few voting for Obama.
I am directly affected by the birth control issue. I have 5 children and the ability to pay for birth control affects my access to it. I vote for Obama because his stance never changes on helping the poor, and his foreign policy is reflective of his measured, careful way of collaboratively solving problems. I liked his answers in the debates. Even though I am disappointed by some things in the last 4 years, I believe he is at least more likely to keep my oldest son from having to go to war due to his diplomacy. I also support his treatment of immigration which is more like the Utah Compact which allows for working individuals to stay here.
I also predict, if Romney wins or not, the courtesy or constrained bigotry about my religion is likely to end after election night.
bwstrauss on November 6, 2012 @ 10:24 am wrote: “I am really becoming convinced that the left is afraid of losing this election. Yesterday Diane was hitting the "voter suppression issue", setting up the narrative that Obama will have the win stolen from him. Today she is trying to emphasize that Romney isn't a Christian, but Obama is.”
Spare us your speculation. Although I’ve wondered why these two topics weren’t explored earlier this election cycle. Maybe Diane was trying to “suppress” them in order to avoid offending conservatives? (That’s sarcasm, by the way.)
But thanks for belittling two very important issues, and taking a purely partisan view of them. And I don’t see any attempt “to emphasize that Romney isn't a Christian”. Maybe a “good” little evangelical like you feels that way about Mormonism, but “nasty” liberal Democrats like me don’t!
And what makes Obama a “secular humanist”? Being a little inconsistent aren’t you? First, conservatives complain about what church Obama attended, then they falsely suggest he’s a “secret Muslim”, now you’re denying he’s religious at all! The desperate need to slander those who disagree with you is one of the reasons religious conservatives have earned a bad name.
Oh, and Obama is far better qualified to continue as President than Romney is to become one.
Elroy wrote:
" On October 19 Diane Rehm accused Romney of being a misogynist due to his Mormon religion.
It is clear to me the White House through their surrogates in the media attempted to play the Mormon card on Romney."
It's not fair to accuse Mitt 'Binders Full Of Women' Romney of misogyny as a Mormon Church leader just because he is a believer in a religion with a well-documented misogynist (polygamy anyone?) and racist history whose misogyny and racism can be found in the doctrines expounded by the Mormon Church's founders. But it is entirely fair to ask a presidential candidate what his personal views are on these doctrines which run afoul of values that most citizens hold dear.
partisan politics on November 6, 2012 @ 10:26 am wrote: “The destruction of the traditional family is at the heart of the problem.”
Such as by serial adulterers like the “Newt”?
And does that concern justify everything the right-wing does? How would banning gay marriage stop husbands and wives from cheating on each other? How would it stop randy teenagers from having sex, and those out-of-wedlock babies you talk about? How does extending the legal rights, duties, and obligations that come from marriage to gay couples in any way affect “traditional marriage”? On this issue, as on so many others, you “conservatives” are long on empty rhetoric, and devoid of proof!
P.S. - But I agree with you about the overuse of the word “racism”. It’s become to the “left” what “Socialism!” and “Communism!” are to the “right”: a catch-all epithet mindlessly employed.
So ironic that Paul Ryan concluded his campaign comments last night berating President Obama, saying the President would destroy America's Judeo-Christian values.........Consider that Ryan has as his idol atheist expatriot Russian Ayn Rand, upon whose principles he has formulated not only his political career but also his recent budget.....the budget that so ripped the poor and disadvantaged that his own Roman Catholic Bishops Council in the US labeled it "immoral".
Please, Mr. Ryan, please show us in the New Testament where Jesus told the poor to pull themselves up by the bootstraps........or called anyone a victim or said the poor and disadvantaged were not being personally accountable. By contrast, Jesus surrounded Himself with the downtrodden and despised of society and constantly derided the wealthy and powerful. He said a rich person had as much chance entering paradise as a camel going through the eye of a needle. Christ's simile was a direct exhortation for the wealthy to shed their earthly possessions and literally redistribute them to the needy......like a camel shedding its baggage to enter the narrowest, lowest gate of a city. He told a young man to sell all his possessions and give them away before the young man could follow Him.
True Judeo-Christian principles are based on serving others and placing the needs of the whole equal to one's own.......also demonstrated by the Apostles in the Acts of the Apostles.........what some erroneously label "communism" or "socialism".
People donate to churches to do GOD`s work,only to find it goes into T-Party/Republican campaign funding. Evil is as evil does.
Here in Ohio we have a religion tax,put right onto your cable tv bill.SICKENING!
ecgberht on November 6, 2012 @ 10:26 am wrote: “For some, pp, that is their religion. Once you realize that, everything else becomes plain.”
True. It’s the religion of the modern Republican Party. They believe in the biggest of “big government”, intruding into the most personal and private aspects of our lives.
ecgberht on November 6, 2012 @ 10:28 am wrote: “Should science trump ideology?”
If by that you mean: should our political decisions and public policy be based on fact and reason, not blind ideology, the answer is yes.
As to Science: there’s always the question of interpretation. Conservatives will point to one set of “facts” to support their views, liberals will point to another. And even when looking at the same facts they draw different conclusions.
Just one reason the “big issues” can’t be answered with “thirty second soundbites” or “bumper sticker slogans”. (But I’m sure you’ll try.)
It was a "news flash" to me, so maybe it will be a news flash to other progressives: Some conservatives (I don't know what percent) see progressives as SELFISH because, as these conservatives see it, WE don't want to do anything for the poor; we want the government to do it for us. Much could be said/written about this.
Also (in my intermittent attempts to see things from the other side), I've heard both that conservatives feel themselves under siege, really threatened by progressives -- while we feel ourselves to be the underdogs, and they feel insulted by all the mean jokes we make about them, which I had found harmless, at worst, until I focused on them. Note to self: Conservatives have feelings, too.
Perhaps we progressives, as liberals, need to take on even more of the responsibility of seeing things from the "other side" than conservatives do....
One thing really irked me about the discussion on the show: the too easy assumption that the Constitution is on the side of those who oppose the birth control provisions in “Obamacare”. That is incorrect.
What the religious right wants is a “special privilege” allowing them to ignore a law they disagree with on religious or moral grounds. The Constitution has never required that. Bob Jones University couldn’t justify race discrimination based on religion. Native Americans had no constitutional right to use peyote, even in their religious ceremonies. And you can’t perform a human sacrifice and literally get away with murder.
The argument for such a “privilege” is both hypocritical and foolish. Hypocritical because those making it would never dream of applying it to other areas. Why should people with no moral or religious objections to gay marriage (such as Reform Jews or the United Church of Christ) be bound by those anti-marriage amendments? Why should people who believe women have a moral and religious right to control their own bodies be bound by abortion bans?
And why shouldn’t people who believe Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, etc., are “tools of the Devil” (or whatever) have the right to exterminate those “enemies of the true faith”? (Don’t laugh. The pilgrims practiced that “right”, and the world’s history is bloodier because of it.)
This also demonstrates the folly of the argument. It inevitably leads to anarchism and civil war, since there is ultimately no law someone can’t find a moral or religious objection to.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Now, this doesn’t mean the birth control controversy wasn’t politically stupid on the part of the Democrats, and wasn’t handled badly by the Obama administration. But that’s a political issue, and a matter of public policy, not Constitutional Law.
I really wish the punditocracy and the commentariat would remember that difference.
Ciao, for now.
I disagree with your guest's comment indicating the Ladder Day Saints Church (Mormon) does not get involved in politics. I am from Salt Lake City, Utah, and YES THEY ARE ACTIVE IN POLITICS! An example is: Every year prior to the opening of our Legislature, they have a "luncheon with active LDS members to let them know how the Church feels about certain bills that will be presented, or hopefully NOT be presented." The exception is this year in 2012 because of the conflict of appearance since Gov Romney is running for President. They are behind any alcohol legislation that is passed. Recently we had some scuttle-but in our State owned Liquor Commission and a temporary replacement had to suddenly be filled. She did an excellent job, but since the LDS did not pre-approve her, she was not elected to continue to fill the position . You bet the LDS Church is active in politics!
P.S. They recently prefer to be called The Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints versus Mormon.
By the way ES, what's with the pre broadcast comment.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"I have, many times. More importantly, I have also studied the history of the Constitution, and the development of Constitutional Law"
Oh, we know! You remind us of that continually!
"Ask yourself these questions: ...."
Ask yourself this question:
Why are the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise clause part of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments), all of which restrict the government with respect to its citizens and not the other way around? That's the answer to #3 by the way.
"The answer to these (and a host of other questions I could ask) is the same: the principle of separation of Church and State is very much “in” the Constitution."
This is called "non sequitur". It is the pronouncement of a conclusion when the premises don't really get you there.
" I would never vote against someone merely because they are of a different faith. But I will always vote against anyone who seeks to impose their faith (or any part of it) on the nation. And that’s true even if the candidate is Jewish (my faith)."
Ah! Now we come to it! What that boils down to is, you won't vote for anyone who will govern as anything but a secular humanist. "impose their faith"? Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "impose". Show me a person whose faith does not inform their thinking as to what is right and wrong - whether for themselves or for their community, and I will show you a person with no faith at all.
Consider this:
When a person donates to charitable entities, such donations can be deducted from their taxes. Those who have few deductions aka the poor cannot itemize deductions.
What that means is donations are NOT funding the Federal government........those who donate are NOT paying double.....NOT paying both the Fed and the charities......so they are really doing what Christ directed - rendering to Caesar and God seperately.
A true cost benefit analysis done honestly would convince conservatives that helping the poor, disabled, and disadvantaged is really helping themselves in the long run by helping to have a more civil peaceful society. Look at the rabble in third world countries - ongoing rebellions, warring factions, destruction of businesses and public facilities, unpredictable futures, lack of marketplace opportunities and the lack of any reliable customer base. Having a Federal government that helps its citizens.....ALL of them......promotes business and prosperity.
Face it all ye conservatives, a strong central government actually is serving the wealthy at an optimal level.
Clifford wrote:
"People donate to churches to do GOD`s work"
You don't have to give to a church to do that. There are many non-sectarian organizations that do wonderful work for the poor and others in need. Give to them.
I have mentioned here that I tithe my income. I don't say that to brag, but just to clarify where I am coming from in my opposition to government-run social programs. But I do not tithe to a church. In fact, the sum total of money that I give to the church is zero. Others are giving quite enough to keep the church up and running. But a 10th of my income (pre-tax) goes to organizations that help the very poor, the homeless and others in need. I try to pick ones that have low-overhead and volunteer staffs so more of the money goes for its intended purpose. There was a reason the tithe was instituted by the nation of Israel in the Old Testament. It raised sufficient revenue that "taxes" per se, were unnecessary. Think about it.