Palin Faith
Article Summary: Kirk Johnson and Kim Severson attempt to shed light on Sarah Palin. The pair uncovers a number of intersections between her political and religious life. At the Assembly of God Church, Palin encouraged, among other things, a prayer that “God’s will” be done in terms of constructing an oil pipeline through Alaska and that troops are continuing to be sent to Iraq. After changing to a “less extreme” nondenominational church, the reporters find a musical director, Adele Morgan, who has known Palin since grade school. Morgan, explained that the Wasilla Bible Church is a “safe” church for politicians because they can passively participate and get credit for attending, without seeming radical.
Palin’s name on the ticket was a genius move by the McCain campaign to excite the religious right. The Republicans were not going to miss an opportunity to point out how pious she is and how God continues to smile down on their party. In fact, the Republicans invoked God twice as often as the Democrats at the two respective conventions.
Not to be outdone, the Democrats, too invited God to their party. An invocation was included after each call to order and a benediction was snuck in before each recess. Clergy members gave the welcome and several speeches peppered into the early line up. “God bless America” was the normal signoff and all the keynote speakers made sure to mention the Big Guy in their addresses.
Not surprisingly, pundits across the board picked up on this development and chided the Democrats. For the Republicans however, having God guide every success and future decision was status quo.
Why is it ‘expected’ that God will be a part of conservative rhetoric but when the Democrats want to jump on the Religion Ark it’s some sort of surprise? What’s more, why is it that when two reporters from a respected publication dig up disturbing evidence that a VP nominee may not be acting in the best interests of a country’s citizens, but rather in political self-interest using The Almighty as a cover, that the media as a whole must come under fire.
Consider the backlash from this article: How dare the New York Times attack this pious woman; how dare they question her faith; how dare they question that God is anything but a solid backer of the Republican Party and conservative ideals? Here’s what it comes down too: Neither party acts solely in the interests of God (those interests are up to debate, as is if God should be regarded above Buddha, Vishnu, etc. in secular America). Since neither party is a true theocracy, it comes down to the individual, not the party, to work for God. Religion then should not be an issue. Shame on the press for making it one.
But wait. It was not the press who brought up the issue. Palin and the McCain campaign paraded her faith out on that RNC stage for all to pry in hopes of attracting the religious right and igniting the conservative base – the Republicans succeeded in that, but now they have to make sure Palin doesn’t seem “too extreme” and that she can still be marketed to middle America, hence switching churches. The truth is that the slander, mud slinging and corruption – on both sides – goes against what is commonly understood as the Way to the Lord.
God does not favor either party. Does that mean God should be left out of the political process? God may not favor abortion or gay marriage, extortion or unwed teenage pregnancies. Voters may agree. But politicians should not be leveraging a deity by picking and choosing what areas of a candidate’s holiness to highlight.
Palin’s PR flaks would do well to remember that in this election, God will not cast a ballot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
It's true, God does not get to vote in the upcoming presidential election. And yes, religion was used in both conventions, but where does that leave us on the separation of politics and religion? Can the two ever be separated out? Sarah Palin may be pulling in votes from the religious right, but is there any way to do that without bringing up the issue of religion? I suppose one could base their political issues on shear moral standing that simply coincided with Christian views, for instance: abortion is the taking of a life and that is morally wrong; there is no religion in that statement. However, then we run into the issue of where does life begin? But that, too, I suppose could be answered from a scientific point of view. While there is a way to separate the two, I think that religion will always play a role in politics as it appeals to voters in a very strong way. While I can separate my religious views from my political ones, religion still plays a big role in how I see many political issues, it is a strong influence on many voters.
It is certainly an excellent point that “God will not cast a ballot” in this election; that is a fact that cannot be disputed. However, whether or not a candidate (or the press) brings it up, religion is an issue that cannot be ignored. Millions of Americans who care deeply about religious values WILL be casting ballots, and they could easily swing the balance in favor of a candidate. While they should be careful not to exploit or overemphasize religion, Sarah Palin’s “PR flaks” are, if anything, wise to focus on her beliefs because they matter to a significant number of Americans. And it is not exactly surprising that Palin is doing so; the Republican Party has often been associated with the religious right. It is surprising that the Democrats are bringing up religion this time around simply because they have not necessarily emphasized God in the past.
You bring up a good point: can we move beyond some sort of identity politics when it comes to religion and the election? I feel that both parties would do well to remember that people of faith are not exclusively Republican, nor are all secularists Democrats. Shifting the attention away from religious issues could help voters focus on other important topics which need to be addressed (the economy, the war), rather than the hot-button issues (abortion, gay marriage). These and other issues can make people into single-issue voters, regardless of their stance on other issues (for example, a person who agrees with the economic policies of the Democratic party, but would vote Republican because he shares religious convictions with the candidates). I am certainly not suggesting that these "hot button" subjects should be ignored (I believe they are crucial), but merely that our political identity should encompass more than our moral or religious beliefs.
Religion is a leading topic of debate in America. Some believe we have a strict wall of separation of church and state, while others believe they coexist in enough opposing force that they are eventually equaled out. With this article titled, “Inviting God to Your party,” by KB, it is argued that parties should not focus so heavily on religion in campaign and that the Democratic Party is looked down upon for using religion as political discourse.
In the first paragraph, KB discusses how the Republicans showed “how pious she (Palin) is and how God continues to smile down on their party.” This statement by the author shows bias in the fact that the candidate has such solidified religious and political beliefs. I believe that Sarah Palin’s combined religious and political beliefs are not being exploited; they are being shown. It is a definite positive for the traditionally conservative Republican Party, as that is the type of voting block they hope to attract. The Obama campaign highlights the “hope” he can instill like he did in the hearts of so many individuals as a community organizer. His pious volunteer work has not gone unnoticed by Obama advocates.
Finally, in the fourth paragraph, KB points out that the media goes after Democrats when they mention religion in their rhetoric. KB does not seem to fathom the fact that the Republican Party has long been the single party that bases their values and stances on issues on their Christian religion. It is apparent the sudden mention of religion in the Democratic Party’s rhetoric would cause a stir, as many of their stances do not adhere to the teachings of mainstream Christianity.
While religion may not be an important factor to all, there is apparently a rather large voting block that wants religion to mix with politics. This is why the Democratic Party has made recent attempts to bring the religious voters to their side of the political spectrum.
“KB does not seem to fathom the fact that the Republican Party has long been the single party that bases their values and stances on issues on their Christian religion” –tyler c
Unfortunately, it seems as though the purpose of the original post was lost on this reader. The post was about how neither party acts in the interest of God, and thus religious appeals should have no effect on bringing voters into the party. To say the Republican Party (pro-death penalty, pro-weapons of destruction, anti-giving to all the poor, anti-caring for all the sick, etc.) has “long been the single part that bases their values and stances on issues on their Christian religion” is far from reality.
Even more disturbing, is that tyler c actually believes a political party is the party of Christians illuminates my point. Religion should not be an appeal in the political realm because one religion (Christianity) should not dictate the laws for a country of many religions.
The media should jump on the Democratic Party for pandering to the religious groups – but it should also jump on the Republican Party for its continued false front of being “the single party that bases their values and stances on issues on their Christian religion.”
Post a Comment