Religion and politics don’t mix, according to David Silverberg. In his article, Silverberg provides us with evidence supporting a historical trend towards an increasingly religion-dominated political landscape. In fact, he submits, religion has become merely a way for politicians to appear “normal” in the public eye. Perhaps the most convincing statistic is with regard to the number of God references in presidential speeches--a 120 percent increase since 1980.
While statistics, book references, and historical perspective are all very interesting, Silverberg’s language throughout the piece illuminates his opinion rather more clearly. “For too long, Americans have been subject to Bible-thumping blended with baby-kissing,” he says, followed by, “Politicians hungry for the religious vote are saying anything to be respected by God-fearing Christians, as if embracing Jesus is the new American flagpin to proudly display.” It’s through statements like these, with their underlying hint of sarcasm and cynicism, that we get a feel for David Silverberg’s strong distaste for religion’s current role in politics.
The phrase “bible-thumping blended with baby-kissing” is especially telling. Baby-kissing is, for all practical purposes, a superficial political tool. By comparing it to the religious banter of politicians, Silverberg is saying that the God talk of candidates is a facade as well. Of course, the entire piece is quite unbalanced and opinionated (as is any op-ed), but Silverberg is revealing what appears to be a deep-rooted contempt for the mixture of religion and politics with this simple phrase.
The article also attempts to make the case that Obama and McCain have the opportunity to rid their campaigns of religious references. “They can talk to the American public as people, as opposed to as congregations,” Silverberg claims. However, the piece presents no persuading argument as to how this can be achieved. This weakness doesn’t detract from the author’s central point, however. He still makes a convincing argument as to why religion and politics shouldn’t be mixed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I have to disagree concerning the strength of Silverberg’s argument; I think it is a fairly weak argument that is poorly constructed. Sure, Silverberg offers ample evidence concerning the presence of religion in contemporary politics, pointing out examples where both political parties have openly appealed to religion. However, Silverberg does not spend any time demonstrating why such appeals are problematic, other than asserting, “politics and religion create an unholy mix.” Silverberg simply assumes that readers will find the mere presence of religion in the political realm as revolting as he does; this makes for a rather weak argument. I’ll admit, he does reference, “the closing gap between church and state,” which one could read as an explanation for why the presence of religion is problematic. However, even this argument would need to be fleshed out more to be persuasive, because all of his examples involve candidates for political office, and how their campaigns are focused on appealing to religious voters. None of his examples focus on people who have already been elected into political office. Candidates, as we all know, have not yet been voted into office, and therefore they do not represent the state; they are still considered private citizens until they are elected into office. Therefore, anything they say or do while they running for office cannot be considered the actions of the state, which means that Silverberg’s argument that candidates’ actions blur the lines between church and state is unfounded and poorly constructed. Overall, I would characterize Silverberg’s article as an opinionated rant rather than a well-constructed argument.
It has long been a characteristic of a politician that they say what we want to hear. I think that the increase in religious references, as pointed out by the article, are in response to the American people wanting to know that their candidate has a particular faith and what it is. Some voters are influenced by a politician’s religion more than any other factor, and believe that as long as their religious views match up they are the best candidate, instead of being concerned if the particular leader has good leadership skills and goals. The article suggests that both candidates have the opportunity to rid their campaigns of religious references, although if both didn’t agree it may have a heavy impact on the one who chooses not to and create an advantage to the one who continues to refer to God. There just aren’t that many atheists voting.
I’d have to agree with Van that the article seems to be more of a rant than a persuasive argument. Silverberg claims that this is the election to firmly separate religion and politics in a way that has not been present since before Reagan’s terms. He fails to explain how this election is any different from previous ones. Obama and McCain engage in this religious pandering as every candidate has. Silverberg ends his article with the famous quote from Kennedy separating his religious beliefs and his public life. I think everyone could agree that politics today is not the same politics of 1960. That separation of public and private does not exist in those definite terms anymore. Every aspect of the candidates’ lives are reported and investigated by today’s media. Not even Kennedy could have escaped the constant questioning of his religious affiliations. While I don’t think religion should be a factor in politics, Silverberg’s article did not do any more to convince me of that fact. He did not present any compelling arguments, aside from the usual religion as a political tactic.
I completely agree with the article in the need there is to separate church and state, as the founding fathers intended. Nonetheless, the reality of the matter is that American politics have become more and more religious and the article provides good statistical evidence to back up this argument. Silverberg talks about the opportunity that Obama and Mc Cain have to distance themselves from religious topics, but does not really provide an argument to why they should, if it has proven to be so effective in the past. Then we must ask ourselves, what is the goal of these candidates, to win the election by all means possible or to conduct their campaign as the founding fathers would have?
I would agree with the post that the historical take on this issue is really very interesting. But Silverberg's fault does not lie in the fact that he does not provide any concrete way for Obama and McCain to do away with the mixing of politics and religion but in the fact that he assumes that they could if they wanted to do so. It simply will not happen. Candidates can no more decide what voters will make important issues any more than they can force them to vote a one way or another. It is not the candidates that make religion an issue, but the voters themselves. Obama and McCain simply have to do what the voters tell them they must. Politicians and presidents may have power in the realm of foreign policy and economics but in that of the importance of religion they most certainly do not.
I agree that a major issue for political candidates should not their religious beliefs, but it would certainly be hard for a candidate not to discuss where he stands when everyone else is. Fortunately, or unfortunately, a lot of voters in the United States are religious and they vote, and many of them are single-issue voters, and that issue is religion. In a perfect world presidential candidates would not have to talk about religion, kiss babies, or discuss their past, but stick to their policies, however, we do not live in a perfect world so it will be hard to separate politics and religion.
I agree that baby kissing and religious talk are two very different things. Religion is something that needs support and involvement in a political leaders’ life, kissing a baby is just a ploy anyone can get away with. Religion was originally brought into this election in a negative light implying that Obama was a Muslim and had terrorist relations. It is maybe in response to such allegations that Obama was then forced to display his actual religion in a more positive light. McCain, then of course, had to respond as well in order to maintain a positive light in the religious community. There is rarely a case where religion and politics can be completely separated, especially in a time of election.
I disagree with the closing statement of the post, "He still makes a
convincing argument as to why religion and politics shouldn't be mixed." Instead of making a convincing argument to why religion and politics should not be mixed, David Silverberg rants on his distaste for religion's imposing role in politics. David Silverberg never attacks religion's new found role with a strong argument as to why it is wrong or the possible negative effects. Instead he laments on historical references and statistics that prove what is already known: today religion plays a bigger role in politics than it ever has. When backing religion's larger role, he does provide very strong evidence. I
especially enjoyed the statistic used and the reference to "Bible-thumping blended with baby kissing." Logan's breakdown of this reference was also very effective, as he tied both actions together as "superficial political tools."
Post a Comment