In a fundraising letter distributed by an anti-abortion group known as the Catholic Advocate, Kansas Republican Senator Sam Brownback alleges that several of his Democratic colleagues characterize themselves as devout Catholics in order to appeal to voters, but disown the Church's core principles once they are in office. Brownback's letter criticizes that “the likes of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi … have campaigned as Catholics while voting to undermine the values that we hold most dear.” Brownback chastises them specifically for their support of pro-choice legislation. The Catholic faith and a pro-choice position, Brownback argues, cannot coexist.
While Brownback's questioning of how his colleagues practice their religion seems intrusive, the actions of the Catholic Democrats do appear disingenuous. The official Catholic position regarding abortion states that it is a sin. While there are certainly Catholics who hold views that do not coincide with those of the Church, it seems hypocritical to “openly and unabashedly claim to be Catholics” and yet not fully embrace a pro-life position, which the Catholic Church very adamantly supports. How can Kennedy and Pelosi, and other Catholic Democrats, justify a pro-choice position?
In William Martin's With God on Our Side, the Republicans attracted religious conservatives by embracing religion. Catholic Democrats may be doing the very same with their own constituency. However, why the sudden reversal? Why act in a way that goes against their proclaimed faith? Giving politicians the benefit of the doubt, if they are truly sincere to their faith, the action of stepping out of the Church's favor and holding a pro-choice position offers a glimpse into the entangled relationship between religion and government. In this instance, Brownback's letter brings up questions of where the crossroad between private life and public service may lie.
As a public servant, it is necessary, however difficult, to draw the line between personal views and government action. In this particular case, it is important to note that Brownback positions his argument based purely on religious grounds. Religion and personal beliefs will no doubt participate in the debate and be a powerful source of influence. But government should not pass legislation based on religious doctrine, which Brownback is suggesting is allowable. The government should not impose a particular religion through goverment.
However, how can we not? Martin's depiction of bringing religion into politics brings up questions regarding the relationship between church and state, but taking religion out brings many inquires as well. In public service, does one have to dispense his or her beliefs in order to maintain a separation between church and state? As with the Democrats in Brownback's letter, is it necessary to engage in hypocrisy, to suppress one's own faith, in order to define the line between religion and government?
Recent Articles of Interest
20 minutes ago
Posts
9 comments:
For me, the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate breaks down around a fairly clear dividing line: Is the fetus a human being? There's no way we can really verify this question, so we just have to assume. If you assume the fetus does count as a life, you're pro-life. If you assume the fetus is not a human being, you're pro-choice.
I respect those who would make either assumption, as we can't really know for sure. I have a harder time understanding the sentiment that "abortion is wrong, but it's not the government's place to intervene." Really? You (not "you" who wrote the article, a more general, rhetorical "you") claim to believe that the fetuses are alive, that they are, essentially, being murdered by the thousands, and you don't feel it's the government's place to legislate on the matter? Protecting human life is one of the central duties of our government; if you believe that abortion is wrong, that the fetuses have a right to life, then how can you oppose government action? Are murder statutes "intrusive use of state power" as well?
That said, I agree that it's uncalled for to question Senators Pelosi and Kennedy's faith. I think it's entirely appropriate, however, to question the internal consistency of their logic.
I think that David raises a valid point concerning the allegiance of political figures. The line between politics and religion often seems blurry or contorted, and the statements concerning certain politicians present a valid fear of hypocrisy. Regardless of my own opinions concerning abortion, etc., I do believe that politicians need to decide whether to adhere to their religious beliefs or not. By declaring staunch Roman Catholicism while also advocating a pro-choice stance, leaders confuse both voters and the boundary between religion and politics. I think that many politicians need to decide which constituency they want to appeal to, and stick to that side, rather than blurring their morals in an attempt to gain more voters or support. I think the clearest way to avoid this confusion is to keep religion out of politics—should leaders be trying to appeal to religious groups in the first place? Instead of advocating a particular faith, politicians should stick to the actual issues at hand, from which their personal beliefs will become evident anyways, rather than trying to directly harness a particular group.
I am not sure that the assumption can be made that Catholics who are pro-choice have modified their beliefs in order to gain public support. Just because a politician is pro-choice, does not mean that they do not consider abortion a sin. They may just feel as if they should not dictate what the decision should be for others. I like the point that was brought up that said if a person does consider abortion murder, then they should want the government to intervene. Catholic politicians may consider abortion as murder, however, they know that some do not see it that way. Maybe they are trying to gain support by recognizing the differences in opinion on this issue, and therefore not condemning those who feel it is their choice to make. Those who believe abortion should be a choice do not necessarily believe that it is the right thing to do.
I feel Brownbeck does make a legitimate point about the hypocrisy of politicians who use their religion in order to win votes, but then claim that politics and religion should be separate when defending their stances on morally-charged issues. If these politicians truly believe in the separation of church and state, they should refrain from talking about religion both while campaigning and while in office. I feel that this situation would work the best and agree with Tanya that if politicians simply focus on the issues, their personal beliefs should become clear. In this I also agree with David that politicians should not pass laws based on their religious convictions. I do, however, realize the difficulty in this becoming reality.
If Brownback has committed an offense in chastising Catholic abortion advocates, it is that he, in David’s words, “positions his argument based purely on religious grounds.” I happen to agree with both David and Brownback that Catholicism does not lend itself to abortion advocacy. But, I think Brownback’s argument would be more persuasive if he had not relied on his faith to come to that realization. As Andrew says in his comment, Catholic pro-choice logic is as suspect as its theology: the Catholic church has come down against abortion—Catholics who do not wish to be in opposition to the Vatican therefore must also come down against abortion. It does not take a polarizing statement of faith to point this out. Perhaps Brownback is doing what Thomas Frank accuses him of in What’s the Matter with Kansas—being extremist to foment anger in his constituency.
But, what of the Catholics themselves? Shouldn’t we ask whether they should be made to oppose abortion simply because they want to remain Catholic? After all, did they ever vote on the Vatican’s doctrine? The answer to these questions is that the Catholic church is neither a Democracy nor a Republic. Rather, it is based on the Vatican’s interpretation of scripture, not the individual’s. If a member of that church has other ideas, well, that is actually the way Protestant churches sprang into being. Kennedy and Pelosi (to use Brownback’s examples) are, in effect, wooing the loyal Catholic voting bloc, but staying truer to their party line than to their church’s theology.
I think David brings up an interesting point about personal beliefs and public service. The pro-choice stance of several Catholic officials, like Nancy Pelosi, outrages those Catholics who see them marketing their faith for votes and then turning on the strong Catholic pro-life sentiment. However, I do not agree that Catholic officials, even if they run under a platform that highlights their faith, face an obligation to further their religion’s political goals. For starters, I think it necessary for elected officials to act according to the desires of their constituents rather than simply following their personal beliefs. Furthermore, elected officials should be able to agree with some of the stances of their religious group and disagree with others without coming under attack. Matters of faith are personal and elected officials should not, first, be expected to always vote on matters of faith, and, second, have the genuine nature of their faith questioned when they do not follow their religion’s political platform.
I think what Amit said is interesting when he wrote "they should refrain from talking about religion both while campaigning and while in office". I think that a lot of of people would find that appealing or at least superior to the convolution of religion and politics in todays political landscape. However, many people make that impossible. They insist on knowing a candidates religious beliefs and how those stances effect every minute issue. They demand to know. Though they may be a minority in the grand scheme of the American population, they are a vocal group and one that politicians have learned that they need to reckon with. With that said, it sometimes becomes very obvious why Nancy Pelosi and others feel the need to declare their faith in such prominent terms-- because the public demands that they do.
As a Catholic who believes that in some cases, abortion may not necessarily be a sin, I can identify with "the likes of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi." In my opinion, religion is a complicated mix of doctrine and personal beliefs, and every member of a faith practices it a slightly different way, so for someone to say that they are Catholic is more like saying that they are part of a community that shares certain beliefs rather than saying that they have identical views on x number of statements. So, it seems that campaigning as a devout Catholic might indicate a desire to connect with voters rather than forward Catholic policies.
That being said, any use of religion in politics has a calculated purpose. The potential backlash from mixing the two means that religion is not brought up unless there is potential to gain. Because using religion to gain political favor is such a controversial issue, perhaps it would be best if politicians just didn't mention what faith they belong to--though, as David points out, removing religion from politics is unlikely to happen any time soon.
One of our early presidents, John Adams, who might well have been more familiar with the original intent of the First Amendment than we are today, said, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (Quotes by our early Presidents)
Laws often deal with moral issues. It should not be considered unusual that a lawmaker would be influenced by his/her religion in wrestling with moral issues before creating a law. One's faith should influence their actions, so people may wonder how a Catholic who is faithful could help to create laws that go against the teaching of that faith. Using your faith as a "vote-for-me" campaign issue MIGHT be OK if you actually follow that faith. After all, I am a man of faith and I might prefer my representatives to act according to a real faith. But if a candidate touts their faith just to get elected and is not particularly influenced by it otherwise, it's a good reason to vote them out.
To me it's a little like the whole flap about wearing a U.S. flag pin on your lapel. If you do so out of a sense of patriotism, good for you! But if you do it for the cameras during an election cycle, shame on you!
Same goes for faith.
Post a Comment