Sunday, October 28, 2012
Sunday Reflection: Religion and Politics
I think maybe we are all a little sick of politics right about now (except perhaps the Waco Farmer).
Still, there is a question lingering with me: Why is it that politicians so rarely talk about their religion-- specifically, in terms of how their religion compels them to come out on issues? Outside of the topic of abortion, this rarely happens.
Let's consider two variables: Whether a politician is religious or not, and whether that same politician has his or her actions in elected office directed, in some way, by religious belief. There are four possible combinations:
1) Not religious/not motivated by religious belief
Certainly, some politicians fit this mold. Often, such actors are directed by non-religious principles, such as economic beliefs or ideas about the role of government. Certainly, this type of politician can have integrity, even in the absence of faith (so long as their secular principles match their actions), and be highly effective.
2) Not religious/motivated by religious belief
I know, I know... at a superficial level this combination makes no sense. However, I do think that many politicians are essentially not religious, but still act out of the tenets of a religion. This may be because their constituents expect it (they have a majority, shared faith), or perhaps because that candidate's lack of faith is... well, kind of a secret. I suspect this happens quite a bit-- that an officeholder loses faith in God (just as many others do), but cannot admit it or act like it because that would be political suicide. It is hard to conclude that such politicians have integrity.
3) Religious/not motivated by religious belief
These are the "two-sphere" people, who "check their faith at the door" when they go to work. What an odd position! If faith is the source of their principles, it is hard to see how such public servants can have any integrity if their actions are disjoined from their principles. I think there are quite a few of these in both parties.
4) Religious/motivated by religious belief
These officeholders make it clear what their faith compels, and act on it publicly. Obviously, this is a position of integrity; their principles match their actions. If we set aside the issue of abortion, this is a relatively rare occurrence.
Conclusion:
Isn't it odd how the two positions with integrity, the first and fourth, so rarely appear in American life?
Still, there is a question lingering with me: Why is it that politicians so rarely talk about their religion-- specifically, in terms of how their religion compels them to come out on issues? Outside of the topic of abortion, this rarely happens.
Let's consider two variables: Whether a politician is religious or not, and whether that same politician has his or her actions in elected office directed, in some way, by religious belief. There are four possible combinations:
1) Not religious/not motivated by religious belief
Certainly, some politicians fit this mold. Often, such actors are directed by non-religious principles, such as economic beliefs or ideas about the role of government. Certainly, this type of politician can have integrity, even in the absence of faith (so long as their secular principles match their actions), and be highly effective.
2) Not religious/motivated by religious belief
I know, I know... at a superficial level this combination makes no sense. However, I do think that many politicians are essentially not religious, but still act out of the tenets of a religion. This may be because their constituents expect it (they have a majority, shared faith), or perhaps because that candidate's lack of faith is... well, kind of a secret. I suspect this happens quite a bit-- that an officeholder loses faith in God (just as many others do), but cannot admit it or act like it because that would be political suicide. It is hard to conclude that such politicians have integrity.
3) Religious/not motivated by religious belief
These are the "two-sphere" people, who "check their faith at the door" when they go to work. What an odd position! If faith is the source of their principles, it is hard to see how such public servants can have any integrity if their actions are disjoined from their principles. I think there are quite a few of these in both parties.
4) Religious/motivated by religious belief
These officeholders make it clear what their faith compels, and act on it publicly. Obviously, this is a position of integrity; their principles match their actions. If we set aside the issue of abortion, this is a relatively rare occurrence.
Conclusion:
Isn't it odd how the two positions with integrity, the first and fourth, so rarely appear in American life?
Comments:
<< Home
I completely agree that the second and third positions you outlined represent the norm for American politicians. Unfortunately, this is only odd if you expect integrity and principle to drive political action (among political leaders). The system of incentives we have adopted in today's public theater (e.g. party before principle, us versus them, Super PACs, etc.) reward well timed talking points more than principled arguments.
I suspect that this is largely a reflection of the electorate. Many Americans are category two and three type people. And among the ones and fours, many ignore apparent contradictions in their own beliefs (e.g. religious atheism, pro life & pro death penalty). Maybe its time to honor integrity before party platform.
I suspect that this is largely a reflection of the electorate. Many Americans are category two and three type people. And among the ones and fours, many ignore apparent contradictions in their own beliefs (e.g. religious atheism, pro life & pro death penalty). Maybe its time to honor integrity before party platform.
Maybe more later, but I think maybe two of my favorite presidents might fall in #2. Both men of the utmost integrity: G. Washington and A. Lincoln. Washington may have come to doubt Christian orthodoxy as his life went on. Perhaps. Scholars continue to debate this. But he never strayed from a cultural morality steeped in Christian morality. Lincoln, on the other hand, may or may not have reconciled his life-long skepticism of Christianity in the last portion of his life, but it is clear that his morality was heavily shaped by the tenets of Christian morality. Lincoln was intentionally more Christian than many of his Christian colleagues.
Post a Comment
<< Home
