Michael Russnow believes the fierce competition between politicians to illustrate who believes in God the most should end. The media perpetuates this with imposing significance on the perceived impact faith plays on the politician’s lives. Russnow doesn't question the sincerity of all politicians, when mentioning Joe Lieberman as the exception, the vast majority come from backgrounds that would allow them to “be hard pressed to fall prey to doctrinaire thinking unless it suited them politically.” This is brings us to the underlying theme of the author’s main point: the candidates’ intentions are political not divine. To further illustrate his cynicism Russnow explains,
“How else to explain Mitt Romney's ‘conversion’ to right-wing political theory in his abandonment of abortion rights and gay partnerships when he was no longer running for governor of progressive Massachusetts, as he attempted to convince mainstream Republicans that he was truly one of their own?”
This quote is perfect because it exemplifies everything that he has said up to this point in the article. Russnow uses this quote to provide the reader a crucial perspective. By using a famous, household name, it provides instant credibility to his point and allows many readers to “jump off the fence” in favor of his view. Another notable moment from the article is when the author questions the possibility of a candidate without “supposed” deep-rooted religious beliefs.
“What if belief in a higher power is not a major factor in a candidate's convictions at all? Should we discount those with the courage to admit this apparently unpopular blasphemous trait, in spite of the fact that he or she might be a terrific and lovely human being, with charitable instincts, good ideas and the capacity to instill confidence in our well being?”
I believe this quote exposes the author’s poorly hidden agenda. Russnow seems to lack any trust in religion and deems religion unnecessary to lead a good life; which provides a widely held controversial perspective. The author puts his “two cents in” on this battle with his rhetorical question, allowing the reader to question the debate between established religion and a personal relationship with God. The quote also makes light of the fact that today, it is political suicide not to be a believer in traditional monotheistic religions. For politicians, it isn't pragmatic to be honest and admit your lack of beliefs in God. As a reader with no other knowledge on the author, I am lead to believe he is, at the very least, highly skeptical of organized religion. Michael Russnow uses concrete examples, a sociological perspective, and much more to question why we put such an emphasis on faith’s impact on candidates’ lives, while at the same time inserting a hidden agenda and many important perspectives.
Posts
5 comments:
Despite the fact that Russnow seems to believe that believing in any kind of organized religion—or believing in anything for that matter—is a cardinal sin (though Russnow would probably scoff at that religious allusion), religion plays a crucial role in politics by illuminating the characters of our candidates. While believing in God does not automatically qualify a person to be a government official, much less President, the core tenets of the mainstream monotheistic religions—honesty, respect, loyalty, and the like—also happen to be qualities we seek in our leaders. Admittedly, Americans (and especially the American media) do to some extent unnecessarily perpetuate the presence of religion in politics, but our obsession with the faiths of our aspiring leaders is less about religion and more about the values that religion represents. Thus, the battle of faith is one of the most important throughout the course of the war we call politics. We merely view religion as a vehicle through which we can advance those qualities and bring them into prominence. It seems to me that, subconsciously, we immediately characterize someone who claims and appears to be religious as unquestionably good and honest until that person does something to prove us incorrect. In our courts—the accused are “innocent until proven guilty”—but in politics, the religious are “qualified until proven otherwise.”
I don’t get the sense from this article that Michael Russnow has a problem with organized religion in general. The point he is trying to make is that a politician’s religion shouldn’t be such a huge deal. While we do tend to associate “good” morals with the fundamental teachings of religion, a non-religious person doesn’t necessarily have “bad” moral values. Plus, it’s plausible (to Russnow, at least) that the candidates’ trips to church on Sundays and frequent God-injected speeches are “a load of bunk” designed to “appeal to a mass audience of believers”. To me, this view doesn’t represent the author’s distaste for religion, but rather his distaste for using religion as a political tool. I feel like Michael Russnow could in fact be a religious person himself. He just has a problem with cheapening it in order to advance one’s political career. (Of course, he could be a fervent “disbeliever” as well, but his point would be no less valid.)
Although Jeff makes a plausible point about the author’s “poorly hidden agenda” and skeptical view of organized religion, I have to disagree with this interpretation of the article. I believe that Russnow does not attempt to discredit organized religion but rather seeks to leave it out of the political equation altogether. In my opinion, Russnow simply believes that we should “do away with religion as a necessary and evidently weighty requirement for public office.” We should instead focus on the qualifications that, in his opinion, more accurately reveal a politician’s true character. He is asking for politics that is completely separate from religion. According to Russnow, religion is a private matter for an individual and should not interfere with his or her politics. Nowhere in this article does he criticize organized religions; he only comments on politicians’ manipulation of such religions.
Government functions on a base of morals that most of its people share. These morals are at times influenced by our religion or by our lack of religion. Nonetheless, there should be a clear difference between morals and religious beliefs. The article and the blog post correctly identify the reasons why the government should not involve itself directly with religious organizations, but then why does government provide special legislation for religious entities? I will answer this with another question. Can politicians separate their emotional personality from their functional personality? In the emotional personality we see the religious aspect and social predispositions, and in the rational aspect we observe the logical thinking process. As the article points out, President Clinton and President Bush focused on the emotional personality by putting forward legislation that intended to “create legal precedents for such advantages and to make religious groups eligible for numerous state and federal grants.” (Allen 1) It can also be said that the presidents were not acting under their emotional personality but rather under the rational personality because they analyzed the positive political repercussions that endorsing religious groups would bring. If this is true the cause of church’s involvement in state affairs does not rely on the government, but on us because we are the ones that are not acting with our rational mind. In the democratic system we make government be whatever we want it to be.
To clarify: I don't believe that Mr. Russnow is opposed to organized religion for ordinary citizens; rather, his argument centers on the role of organized religion for politicians specifically. I agree that his issue is with politicians who present themselves as openly religious—a characteristic which he believes has no place in politics. But while Russnow makes an effective argument for eliminating, or at the very least diminishing, the role religion plays in politics, he fails to acknowledge that our value system—not religion itself—is the core of this perceived flaw in our political system.
By the way, it is very telling of our society that our candidates cannot go to their places of worship without every move being analyzed and criticized as calculated and manipulative. We elevate these people to such high statuses that we cannot conceive of them as normal human beings who might actually believe in a higher power. Of course, the major source of this problem is the media, which obsesses over every minute detail of a candidate’s life to the point where he or she can no longer sneeze without lingering questions regarding that person’s health and capacity to serve in the office to which he or she may be elected.
Post a Comment